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 - 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/36370335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=I-49+SOUTH%2C+LAFAYETE+REGIONAL+AIRPORT+TO+LA+88%2C+ROUTE+U.S.+90%2C+IBERIA%2C+LAYFAYETTE%2C+AND+ST.+MARTIN+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FEDERAL+PROJECT+NO.+I-49-1%28057%29%3B+STATE+PROJECT+NO.+700-99-00230%29.&rft.title=I-49+SOUTH%2C+LAFAYETE+REGIONAL+AIRPORT+TO+LA+88%2C+ROUTE+U.S.+90%2C+IBERIA%2C+LAYFAYETTE%2C+AND+ST.+MARTIN+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FEDERAL+PROJECT+NO.+I-49-1%28057%29%3B+STATE+PROJECT+NO.+700-99-00230%29.&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 - Final. 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 11 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36370275; 050449D-050176_0011 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 - 11 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/36370275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 22 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369924; 050449D-050176_0022 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 - 22 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/36369924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 1 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369731; 050449D-050176_0001 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 - 1 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/36369731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 20 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369663; 050449D-050176_0020 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 - 20 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/36369663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 2 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369592; 050449D-050176_0002 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 - 2 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/36369592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 12 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369297; 050449D-050176_0012 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 - 12 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/36369297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 15 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369289; 050449D-050176_0015 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 - 15 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/36369289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=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 23 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369273; 050449D-050176_0023 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 - 23 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/36369273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 5 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369224; 050449D-050176_0005 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 - 5 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/36369224?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 17 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369219; 050449D-050176_0017 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 - 17 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/36369219?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 30 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369207; 050449D-050176_0030 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 - 30 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/36369207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 3 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369161; 050449D-050176_0003 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 - 3 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/36369161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 26 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36369145; 050449D-050176_0026 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 - 26 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/36369145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 10 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36368960; 050449D-050176_0010 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 - 10 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/36368960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 9 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36368889; 050449D-050176_0009 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 - 9 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/36368889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 28 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36368815; 050449D-050176_0028 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 - 28 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/36368815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 25 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36368749; 050449D-050176_0025 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 - 25 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/36368749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 13 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36368633; 050449D-050176_0013 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 - 13 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/36368633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 18 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36368243; 050449D-050176_0018 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 - 18 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/36368243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 19 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36367890; 050449D-050176_0019 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 - 19 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/36367890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 16 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36367826; 050449D-050176_0016 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 - 16 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/36367826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 4 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36367726; 050449D-050176_0004 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 - 4 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/36367726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 21 of 30] T2 - JUNEAU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU, ALASKA. AN - 36367539; 050449D-050176_0021 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 - 21 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/36367539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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. AN - 16358170; 11505 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 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/16358170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-26&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001). AN - 36369204; 050683D-050163_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a permit for the construction and operation of a new rail line and associated facilities in east-central Wyoming, southwest South Dakota, and south-central Minnesota is proposed. The rail line would allow the applicant, Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E), to become the third rail carrier to serve Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines. The project would involve construction of 280 miles of new line and rehabilitation of 600 miles of existing line. The applicants proposal would include 262.-3 miles of new rail line extending from DM&E's existing system near Wasta, South Dakota. The new line would extend generally to the southwest to Edgemont, South Dakota, thence west into Wyoming to connect with existing coal mines located south of Gillette. This portion of the new construction would traverse portions of Custer, Fall River, Jackson, and Pennington counties, South Dakota and Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston counties, Wyoming. The new rail construction would also include a 13.31-mile line segment at Mankato, Minnesota within Blue Earth and Nicollet counties. DM&E current uses trackage on both sides of Mankato, accessed by trackage rights on rail line operated by the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The Mankato construction would provide DM&E direct access between its existing lines and allow DM&E to avoid operational conflicts with UP. The final proposed segment of new rail construction would create a connection between the existing rail systems of DM&E and the I&M Link Railroad. The connection would include construction and operation of approximately 2.94 miles of new rail line near Owatonna, Minnesota in Steele County. To transport coal over the existing system, DM&E would rebuild and upgrade approximately 597.8 miles of rail line along its existing system; 584.95 miles of the rehabilitated track would be along DM&E's mainline between Wasta, South Dakota, and Winona, Minnesota. This upgrade project would cross Winona, Olmstead, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Browh, Redwood, Lyon, and Lincoln counties in Minnesota, and Brookings, Kingsbury, Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Stanley, Hakon, and Jackson counties in South Dakota. An additional 12.85 miles of existing rail line between Oral and Smithwick, in Fall River County, South Dakota, would also be rebuilt. Rail rehabilitation would include rail and tie replacement, additional sidings, signals, grade crossing improvements, and other system improvements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered with respect to extension of the system in the final EIS of November 2001. Key issues addressed during scoping for this draft supplemental EIS include those related to horn noise, the relationship between vibration and horn noise, and potential for increase coal consumption in the region serviced by DM&E. Alternative B would call for new construction to occur along the Cheyenne River. Alternative C would avoid new construction in sensitive areas in South Dakota and Wyoming. Alternative D would reconstruct the existing line through Rapid City to Smithwick, provide for new construction to Edgemont, and continue with construction adjacent to the existing rail bed through Newcastle and Moorcroft. As numerous federal and state agencies are involved in the decision regarding choice of a preferred alternative, a number of preferences have been forwarded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of a third rail carrier to serve the Powder River Basin would increase the efficiency of the movement of coal eastward from the basin. The new rail line would also increase the operational efficiency of DM&E's existing rail line in Minnesota and South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the rail system would affect geology and soils, surface water and wetlands, groundwater, vegetation, agricultural land and operations, residential and commercial land uses, public land uses, cultural resources, recreation resources, environmental justice with respect to disadvantaged populations and minorities and the elderly, ranching, traditional Native American tribal cultural properties and other cultural resources, visual aesthetics. air quality, certain threatened and endangered species, and safety, including emergency vehicle response times. System operation would result in the generation of noise and vibration. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (49 U.S.C. 10901), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0440D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0073F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050163, 252 pages, April 15, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Geology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - South Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTSTATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTSTATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONSTRUCTION INTO THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, POWDER RIVER BASIN EXPANSION PROJECT, MINNESOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, WYOMING (FINANCE DOCKET NO. 33407 - DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, & EASTERN RAILROAD CORPORATION) (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2001). AN - 16346741; 11502 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a permit for the construction and operation of a new rail line and associated facilities in east-central Wyoming, southwest South Dakota, and south-central Minnesota is proposed. The rail line would allow the applicant, Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation (DM&E), to become the third rail carrier to serve Wyoming's Powder River Basin coal mines. The project would involve construction of 280 miles of new line and rehabilitation of 600 miles of existing line. The applicants proposal would include 262.-3 miles of new rail line extending from DM&E's existing system near Wasta, South Dakota. The new line would extend generally to the southwest to Edgemont, South Dakota, thence west into Wyoming to connect with existing coal mines located south of Gillette. This portion of the new construction would traverse portions of Custer, Fall River, Jackson, and Pennington counties, South Dakota and Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and Weston counties, Wyoming. The new rail construction would also include a 13.31-mile line segment at Mankato, Minnesota within Blue Earth and Nicollet counties. DM&E current uses trackage on both sides of Mankato, accessed by trackage rights on rail line operated by the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP). The Mankato construction would provide DM&E direct access between its existing lines and allow DM&E to avoid operational conflicts with UP. The final proposed segment of new rail construction would create a connection between the existing rail systems of DM&E and the I&M Link Railroad. The connection would include construction and operation of approximately 2.94 miles of new rail line near Owatonna, Minnesota in Steele County. To transport coal over the existing system, DM&E would rebuild and upgrade approximately 597.8 miles of rail line along its existing system; 584.95 miles of the rehabilitated track would be along DM&E's mainline between Wasta, South Dakota, and Winona, Minnesota. This upgrade project would cross Winona, Olmstead, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Browh, Redwood, Lyon, and Lincoln counties in Minnesota, and Brookings, Kingsbury, Beadle, Hand, Hyde, Hughes, Stanley, Hakon, and Jackson counties in South Dakota. An additional 12.85 miles of existing rail line between Oral and Smithwick, in Fall River County, South Dakota, would also be rebuilt. Rail rehabilitation would include rail and tie replacement, additional sidings, signals, grade crossing improvements, and other system improvements. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), were considered with respect to extension of the system in the final EIS of November 2001. Key issues addressed during scoping for this draft supplemental EIS include those related to horn noise, the relationship between vibration and horn noise, and potential for increase coal consumption in the region serviced by DM&E. Alternative B would call for new construction to occur along the Cheyenne River. Alternative C would avoid new construction in sensitive areas in South Dakota and Wyoming. Alternative D would reconstruct the existing line through Rapid City to Smithwick, provide for new construction to Edgemont, and continue with construction adjacent to the existing rail bed through Newcastle and Moorcroft. As numerous federal and state agencies are involved in the decision regarding choice of a preferred alternative, a number of preferences have been forwarded. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Addition of a third rail carrier to serve the Powder River Basin would increase the efficiency of the movement of coal eastward from the basin. The new rail line would also increase the operational efficiency of DM&E's existing rail line in Minnesota and South Dakota. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation of the rail system would affect geology and soils, surface water and wetlands, groundwater, vegetation, agricultural land and operations, residential and commercial land uses, public land uses, cultural resources, recreation resources, environmental justice with respect to disadvantaged populations and minorities and the elderly, ranching, traditional Native American tribal cultural properties and other cultural resources, visual aesthetics. air quality, certain threatened and endangered species, and safety, including emergency vehicle response times. System operation would result in the generation of noise and vibration. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (49 U.S.C. 10901), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 00-0440D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0073F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050163, 252 pages, April 15, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Geology KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - South Dakota KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTSTATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%29.&rft.title=CONSTRUCTION+INTO+THE+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN%2C+POWDER+RIVER+BASIN+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA%2C+WYOMING+%28FINANCE+DOCKET+NO.+33407+-+DAKOTA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+%26+EASTERN+RAILROAD+CORPORATION%29+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACTSTATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2001%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PEARL CROSSING LNG PROJECT, GULF OF MEXICO, APPROXIMATELY 41 MILES SOUTH OF CAMERON PARISK, CAMERON AND CALCASIEU PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 16345873; 11501 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) deep-water port terminal and two parallel natural gas pipeline facilities in Cameron and Calcasieu parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The deep-water port would be located approximately 41 miles south of Cameron Parish in Outer Continental Shelf lease block West Cameron 220 in a water depth of approximately 62 feet. The terminal would include LNG receiving, storage, and regasificaton facilities and associated offshore and onshore pipelines. More specifically, the Pearl Crossing deep-water port would consist of a concrete gravity-based structure containing two LNG storage tanks each with a capacity of 327,000 cubic yards and facilities to provide for LNG carrier berthing, LNG unloading arms, vaporizers, utility systems, and crew accommodations. Pearl Crossing would be able to receive LNG carriers with a capacity of up to 327,000 cubic yards and would be linked to the regional pipeline system via two offshore pipelines approximately 53 miles long, two offshore to onshore pipelines approximately 0.5 mile long, and a single onshore pipeline approximately 63.7 miles long. The dual offshore pipelines would connect with the two offshore to onshore pipelines, would then connect with the single onshore pipeline. The pipelines would transport the natural gas produced by the offshore LNG regasification facility to onshore intrastate and interstate gas transmission facilities. Pearl Crossing would have an average annual sendout rate of approximately 2.0 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas to the pipeline system, with a peak sendout rate of 2.8 billion cubic feet per day. A 100-acre graving dock at the Kiewit Offshore Services Ltd. site in San Patricio Count, Texas would be used for the fabrication of the gravity-based structure. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative, as well as alternative project components, including one alternative terminal location, two LNG vaporization techniques, one alternative offshore pipeline route, two alternative onshore pipeline routes, and two graving dock locations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide facilities that would provide natural gas feed to the existing and future natural gas transmission pipelines in Cameron and Calcasieu parishes. The terminal could function as an artificial reef, benefiting reef fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Project operation would employ 60 full-time workers, 75 percent of whom would be local hires. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would displace approximately 12 acres of sea floor within the footprint area. Construction and operation of the facility would release drilling fluids, various other waste materials, degasification product leaks and the like into the Gulf, doing short-term damage to fisheries, including essential fish habitat, marine mammals, sea turtles, and coastal wetland wildlife resources, including shorebird habitat. During marine and prehistoric cultural resource surveys along offshore pipeline routes, anomalies possibly representing cultural resources were identified; these anomalies would be submitted to further investigation. Construction and operation of the terminal and pipelines would affect land use recreational use, and visual aesthetics in the Gulf and along the shoreline. LNG carrier traffic would increase the number of vessels in the area, reducing navigational safety in the Gulf somewhat. Minor emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides would be generated by the terminal. LEGAL MANDATES: 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: 050162, 811 pages, April 15, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: USCG-2004-18474 KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Navigation KW - Pipelines KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Texas 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/16345873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PEARL+CROSSING+LNG+PROJECT%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+APPROXIMATELY+41+MILES+SOUTH+OF+CAMERON+PARISK%2C+CAMERON+AND+CALCASIEU+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=PEARL+CROSSING+LNG+PROJECT%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+APPROXIMATELY+41+MILES+SOUTH+OF+CAMERON+PARISK%2C+CAMERON+AND+CALCASIEU+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Coast Guard and Maime Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 15, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. AN - 36436171; 11494 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Washington Aqueduct's current practice of discharging water treatment residuals onto the Potomac River in Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Residuals consist of solid particles removed from water taken for treatment from the Potomac River. The removed solids have historically been returned to the Potomac River, but the recently reissued version of the Washington Aqueducts Permit No. DC 0000019 effectively precludes the discharge of water treatment solids to the river. Rather than discharging residuals into the river, the modified system would collect, treat, and dispose of residuals at an alternate location. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed alternative (Alternative E) would involve collection of residuals at the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant and Georgetown Reservoir, treatment of the residuals at East Dalecarlia Processing Site on government property located north of Sibley Memorial Hospital in the District of Columbia, and disposal of the residuals via trucks on major streets to licensed land disposal sites likely located in Maryland or Virginia. An estimated eight truck trips per day, five days per week, of dewatered residuals would be transported from the Dalecarlia waste treatment plant site. Higher numbers of trucks would be required during peak residuals production periods. Cost of construction of the proposed action is estimated at $54.3 million in 2004 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management and treatment system would allow the Washington Aqueduct to achieve complete compliance with NPDES Permit DC0000019 and all other federal and local regulations. The new process would not impact current or future production of safe drinking water reliability for the aqueduct water consumers. If possible, the quantities of solids generated by water treatment processes would be reduced though optimized coagulation or other means. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The separation, generation, and temporary and permanent storage of solids would generate odors and gases. Landfills accepting residuals would generate odors and result in the displacement of land for other purposes. Some hazardous materials could be contained in residual spoils. Treatment and disposal facilities would mar local visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050154, 412 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Disposal KW - Landfills KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Waste Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=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 the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. AN - 36373880; 050682D-050154_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Washington Aqueduct's current practice of discharging water treatment residuals onto the Potomac River in Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Residuals consist of solid particles removed from water taken for treatment from the Potomac River. The removed solids have historically been returned to the Potomac River, but the recently reissued version of the Washington Aqueducts Permit No. DC 0000019 effectively precludes the discharge of water treatment solids to the river. Rather than discharging residuals into the river, the modified system would collect, treat, and dispose of residuals at an alternate location. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed alternative (Alternative E) would involve collection of residuals at the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant and Georgetown Reservoir, treatment of the residuals at East Dalecarlia Processing Site on government property located north of Sibley Memorial Hospital in the District of Columbia, and disposal of the residuals via trucks on major streets to licensed land disposal sites likely located in Maryland or Virginia. An estimated eight truck trips per day, five days per week, of dewatered residuals would be transported from the Dalecarlia waste treatment plant site. Higher numbers of trucks would be required during peak residuals production periods. Cost of construction of the proposed action is estimated at $54.3 million in 2004 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management and treatment system would allow the Washington Aqueduct to achieve complete compliance with NPDES Permit DC0000019 and all other federal and local regulations. The new process would not impact current or future production of safe drinking water reliability for the aqueduct water consumers. If possible, the quantities of solids generated by water treatment processes would be reduced though optimized coagulation or other means. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The separation, generation, and temporary and permanent storage of solids would generate odors and gases. Landfills accepting residuals would generate odors and result in the displacement of land for other purposes. Some hazardous materials could be contained in residual spoils. Treatment and disposal facilities would mar local visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050154, 412 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Disposal KW - Landfills KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Waste Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&rft.title=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&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: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. AN - 36373802; 050682D-050154_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Washington Aqueduct's current practice of discharging water treatment residuals onto the Potomac River in Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Residuals consist of solid particles removed from water taken for treatment from the Potomac River. The removed solids have historically been returned to the Potomac River, but the recently reissued version of the Washington Aqueducts Permit No. DC 0000019 effectively precludes the discharge of water treatment solids to the river. Rather than discharging residuals into the river, the modified system would collect, treat, and dispose of residuals at an alternate location. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed alternative (Alternative E) would involve collection of residuals at the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant and Georgetown Reservoir, treatment of the residuals at East Dalecarlia Processing Site on government property located north of Sibley Memorial Hospital in the District of Columbia, and disposal of the residuals via trucks on major streets to licensed land disposal sites likely located in Maryland or Virginia. An estimated eight truck trips per day, five days per week, of dewatered residuals would be transported from the Dalecarlia waste treatment plant site. Higher numbers of trucks would be required during peak residuals production periods. Cost of construction of the proposed action is estimated at $54.3 million in 2004 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management and treatment system would allow the Washington Aqueduct to achieve complete compliance with NPDES Permit DC0000019 and all other federal and local regulations. The new process would not impact current or future production of safe drinking water reliability for the aqueduct water consumers. If possible, the quantities of solids generated by water treatment processes would be reduced though optimized coagulation or other means. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The separation, generation, and temporary and permanent storage of solids would generate odors and gases. Landfills accepting residuals would generate odors and result in the displacement of land for other purposes. Some hazardous materials could be contained in residual spoils. Treatment and disposal facilities would mar local visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050154, 412 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Disposal KW - Landfills KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Waste Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&rft.title=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&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: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. AN - 36370732; 050682D-050154_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Washington Aqueduct's current practice of discharging water treatment residuals onto the Potomac River in Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Residuals consist of solid particles removed from water taken for treatment from the Potomac River. The removed solids have historically been returned to the Potomac River, but the recently reissued version of the Washington Aqueducts Permit No. DC 0000019 effectively precludes the discharge of water treatment solids to the river. Rather than discharging residuals into the river, the modified system would collect, treat, and dispose of residuals at an alternate location. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed alternative (Alternative E) would involve collection of residuals at the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant and Georgetown Reservoir, treatment of the residuals at East Dalecarlia Processing Site on government property located north of Sibley Memorial Hospital in the District of Columbia, and disposal of the residuals via trucks on major streets to licensed land disposal sites likely located in Maryland or Virginia. An estimated eight truck trips per day, five days per week, of dewatered residuals would be transported from the Dalecarlia waste treatment plant site. Higher numbers of trucks would be required during peak residuals production periods. Cost of construction of the proposed action is estimated at $54.3 million in 2004 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management and treatment system would allow the Washington Aqueduct to achieve complete compliance with NPDES Permit DC0000019 and all other federal and local regulations. The new process would not impact current or future production of safe drinking water reliability for the aqueduct water consumers. If possible, the quantities of solids generated by water treatment processes would be reduced though optimized coagulation or other means. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The separation, generation, and temporary and permanent storage of solids would generate odors and gases. Landfills accepting residuals would generate odors and result in the displacement of land for other purposes. Some hazardous materials could be contained in residual spoils. Treatment and disposal facilities would mar local visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050154, 412 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Disposal KW - Landfills KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Waste Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 the Army, Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. AN - 36370678; 050682D-050154_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Washington Aqueduct's current practice of discharging water treatment residuals onto the Potomac River in Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Residuals consist of solid particles removed from water taken for treatment from the Potomac River. The removed solids have historically been returned to the Potomac River, but the recently reissued version of the Washington Aqueducts Permit No. DC 0000019 effectively precludes the discharge of water treatment solids to the river. Rather than discharging residuals into the river, the modified system would collect, treat, and dispose of residuals at an alternate location. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed alternative (Alternative E) would involve collection of residuals at the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant and Georgetown Reservoir, treatment of the residuals at East Dalecarlia Processing Site on government property located north of Sibley Memorial Hospital in the District of Columbia, and disposal of the residuals via trucks on major streets to licensed land disposal sites likely located in Maryland or Virginia. An estimated eight truck trips per day, five days per week, of dewatered residuals would be transported from the Dalecarlia waste treatment plant site. Higher numbers of trucks would be required during peak residuals production periods. Cost of construction of the proposed action is estimated at $54.3 million in 2004 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management and treatment system would allow the Washington Aqueduct to achieve complete compliance with NPDES Permit DC0000019 and all other federal and local regulations. The new process would not impact current or future production of safe drinking water reliability for the aqueduct water consumers. If possible, the quantities of solids generated by water treatment processes would be reduced though optimized coagulation or other means. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The separation, generation, and temporary and permanent storage of solids would generate odors and gases. Landfills accepting residuals would generate odors and result in the displacement of land for other purposes. Some hazardous materials could be contained in residual spoils. Treatment and disposal facilities would mar local visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050154, 412 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Disposal KW - Landfills KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Waste Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&rft.title=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&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: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. AN - 36370310; 050682D-050154_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Washington Aqueduct's current practice of discharging water treatment residuals onto the Potomac River in Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Residuals consist of solid particles removed from water taken for treatment from the Potomac River. The removed solids have historically been returned to the Potomac River, but the recently reissued version of the Washington Aqueducts Permit No. DC 0000019 effectively precludes the discharge of water treatment solids to the river. Rather than discharging residuals into the river, the modified system would collect, treat, and dispose of residuals at an alternate location. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed alternative (Alternative E) would involve collection of residuals at the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant and Georgetown Reservoir, treatment of the residuals at East Dalecarlia Processing Site on government property located north of Sibley Memorial Hospital in the District of Columbia, and disposal of the residuals via trucks on major streets to licensed land disposal sites likely located in Maryland or Virginia. An estimated eight truck trips per day, five days per week, of dewatered residuals would be transported from the Dalecarlia waste treatment plant site. Higher numbers of trucks would be required during peak residuals production periods. Cost of construction of the proposed action is estimated at $54.3 million in 2004 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management and treatment system would allow the Washington Aqueduct to achieve complete compliance with NPDES Permit DC0000019 and all other federal and local regulations. The new process would not impact current or future production of safe drinking water reliability for the aqueduct water consumers. If possible, the quantities of solids generated by water treatment processes would be reduced though optimized coagulation or other means. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The separation, generation, and temporary and permanent storage of solids would generate odors and gases. Landfills accepting residuals would generate odors and result in the displacement of land for other purposes. Some hazardous materials could be contained in residual spoils. Treatment and disposal facilities would mar local visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050154, 412 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Disposal KW - Landfills KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Waste Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&rft.title=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&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: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - WATER TREATMENT RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR THE WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT, WASHINGTON, D.C. AN - 36369853; 050682D-050154_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of the Washington Aqueduct's current practice of discharging water treatment residuals onto the Potomac River in Washington, District of Columbia is proposed. Residuals consist of solid particles removed from water taken for treatment from the Potomac River. The removed solids have historically been returned to the Potomac River, but the recently reissued version of the Washington Aqueducts Permit No. DC 0000019 effectively precludes the discharge of water treatment solids to the river. Rather than discharging residuals into the river, the modified system would collect, treat, and dispose of residuals at an alternate location. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed alternative (Alternative E) would involve collection of residuals at the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant and Georgetown Reservoir, treatment of the residuals at East Dalecarlia Processing Site on government property located north of Sibley Memorial Hospital in the District of Columbia, and disposal of the residuals via trucks on major streets to licensed land disposal sites likely located in Maryland or Virginia. An estimated eight truck trips per day, five days per week, of dewatered residuals would be transported from the Dalecarlia waste treatment plant site. Higher numbers of trucks would be required during peak residuals production periods. Cost of construction of the proposed action is estimated at $54.3 million in 2004 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new management and treatment system would allow the Washington Aqueduct to achieve complete compliance with NPDES Permit DC0000019 and all other federal and local regulations. The new process would not impact current or future production of safe drinking water reliability for the aqueduct water consumers. If possible, the quantities of solids generated by water treatment processes would be reduced though optimized coagulation or other means. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The separation, generation, and temporary and permanent storage of solids would generate odors and gases. Landfills accepting residuals would generate odors and result in the displacement of land for other purposes. Some hazardous materials could be contained in residual spoils. Treatment and disposal facilities would mar local visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050154, 412 pages and maps, April 14, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Disposal KW - Landfills KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Odor Thresholds KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Waste Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&rft.title=WATER+TREATMENT+RESIDUALS+MANAGEMENT+PROCESS+FOR+THE+WASHINGTON+AQUEDUCT%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+D.C.&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: April 14, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNITED STATES HIGHWAY (USH) 41, OCONTO TO PESHTIGO, MARINETT AND OCONTO COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 36437221; 11489 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of US 41 between Oconto and Peshtigo and the construction of bypasses around Oconto and Peshtigo in Marenette and Onconto counties, Wisconsin is proposed. US 41 is a principal arterial highway providing a vital north-south transportation link between southeastern Wisconsin and Michigan. The entire US 41 corridor is designated a a backbone highway under the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's Corridors 2020 plan designed to provide a network of high quality highways connections all regions of the state and the state network to the national system of interstate highways and other multi-lane highways. US 41 also provides connections to major east-west highways in north-central Wisconsin, regional service to economic centers and tourism resources, and local service to communities along the corridor. The 21-mile segment between the cities of Oconto and Peshtigo represents the final link in the US 41 corridor proposed for capacity improvements. In 2027, traffic is expected to increase by a range of 36 to 51 percent and include 17 percent heavy truck traffic along the study corridor. Present and project traffic volumes exceed the threshold at which a four-lane, divided highway would provide level of service C at 4.0 or higher for a Corridors 2020 backbone highway. Numerous access points and high truck volumes affect traffic flow and safety. Crash data for 1998 through 2002 indicate that the total crash and injury rates in Oconto and Peshtigo were above statewide averages. The corridor has been divided into three sections, including one section each bypassing the Onconto and Peshtigo areas and one section extending between the bypasses. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative and one to four alternatives for each section. The preferred alternative for the Oconto-to-Peshtigo section would involve reconstruction of the existing alignment with an off-alignment segment in the area south of Peshtigo. The four-lane bypasses around Onconto and Peshtigo would consist of two 12-foot lanes in each direction separated by a 60-foot grass median. The bypasses would be constructed to freeway standards and would not have direct driveway or side road connections. Access to and from US 41 would be provided via grade-separated intersections at the bypasses. The expressway facility between Onconto and Peshtigo would also consist of two 12-foot lanes in each direction separated by a 60-foot grass median. Access to the expressway would involve relocating driveways to adjacent side roads, consolidating driveways and field entrances, and removing unnecessary points. Rights-of-way widths would vary from 250 to 300 feet along the entire US 41 facility, including the bypasses and the expressway. Cost of construction of the preferred alternatives is estimated at $119.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expressway/bypass combination would provide a safe and efficient transportation system that would serve present and future traffic demand while minimizing disturbance to the natural and human environment to the extent practicable. The facility would improve system linkage and take advantage of the importance of the corridor. Safety along US 41 would be enhanced due to amelioration of design deficiencies and safety hazards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 803.9 acres, would result in the displacement of 267.9 acres of farmland, 138 acres of residential land, 26 acres of commercial property and three businesses, three farm properties, 199 acres of wetlands, one historic structure, and 173 acres of upland habitat. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The alignment would traverse 10 farm properties, resulting in landlocked and/or severed parcels. Floodplain encroachment would occur as the alignment traversed 21 streams. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 38 sensitive receivers, including 18 residences. Construction workers would encounter six contaminated materials 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). JF - EPA number: 050149, 241 pages and maps, April 7, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-05-02-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/36437221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNITED+STATES+HIGHWAY+%28USH%29+41%2C+OCONTO+TO+PESHTIGO%2C+MARINETT+AND+OCONTO+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=UNITED+STATES+HIGHWAY+%28USH%29+41%2C+OCONTO+TO+PESHTIGO%2C+MARINETT+AND+OCONTO+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UNITED STATES HIGHWAY (USH) 41, OCONTO TO PESHTIGO, MARINETT AND OCONTO COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - UNITED STATES HIGHWAY (USH) 41, OCONTO TO PESHTIGO, MARINETT AND OCONTO COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 36369761; 050633F-050149_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of US 41 between Oconto and Peshtigo and the construction of bypasses around Oconto and Peshtigo in Marenette and Onconto counties, Wisconsin is proposed. US 41 is a principal arterial highway providing a vital north-south transportation link between southeastern Wisconsin and Michigan. The entire US 41 corridor is designated a a backbone highway under the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's Corridors 2020 plan designed to provide a network of high quality highways connections all regions of the state and the state network to the national system of interstate highways and other multi-lane highways. US 41 also provides connections to major east-west highways in north-central Wisconsin, regional service to economic centers and tourism resources, and local service to communities along the corridor. The 21-mile segment between the cities of Oconto and Peshtigo represents the final link in the US 41 corridor proposed for capacity improvements. In 2027, traffic is expected to increase by a range of 36 to 51 percent and include 17 percent heavy truck traffic along the study corridor. Present and project traffic volumes exceed the threshold at which a four-lane, divided highway would provide level of service C at 4.0 or higher for a Corridors 2020 backbone highway. Numerous access points and high truck volumes affect traffic flow and safety. Crash data for 1998 through 2002 indicate that the total crash and injury rates in Oconto and Peshtigo were above statewide averages. The corridor has been divided into three sections, including one section each bypassing the Onconto and Peshtigo areas and one section extending between the bypasses. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative and one to four alternatives for each section. The preferred alternative for the Oconto-to-Peshtigo section would involve reconstruction of the existing alignment with an off-alignment segment in the area south of Peshtigo. The four-lane bypasses around Onconto and Peshtigo would consist of two 12-foot lanes in each direction separated by a 60-foot grass median. The bypasses would be constructed to freeway standards and would not have direct driveway or side road connections. Access to and from US 41 would be provided via grade-separated intersections at the bypasses. The expressway facility between Onconto and Peshtigo would also consist of two 12-foot lanes in each direction separated by a 60-foot grass median. Access to the expressway would involve relocating driveways to adjacent side roads, consolidating driveways and field entrances, and removing unnecessary points. Rights-of-way widths would vary from 250 to 300 feet along the entire US 41 facility, including the bypasses and the expressway. Cost of construction of the preferred alternatives is estimated at $119.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The expressway/bypass combination would provide a safe and efficient transportation system that would serve present and future traffic demand while minimizing disturbance to the natural and human environment to the extent practicable. The facility would improve system linkage and take advantage of the importance of the corridor. Safety along US 41 would be enhanced due to amelioration of design deficiencies and safety hazards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 803.9 acres, would result in the displacement of 267.9 acres of farmland, 138 acres of residential land, 26 acres of commercial property and three businesses, three farm properties, 199 acres of wetlands, one historic structure, and 173 acres of upland habitat. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The alignment would traverse 10 farm properties, resulting in landlocked and/or severed parcels. Floodplain encroachment would occur as the alignment traversed 21 streams. Traffic generated noise would exceed federal standards at 38 sensitive receivers, including 18 residences. Construction workers would encounter six contaminated materials 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). JF - EPA number: 050149, 241 pages and maps, April 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-05-02-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/36369761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UNITED+STATES+HIGHWAY+%28USH%29+41%2C+OCONTO+TO+PESHTIGO%2C+MARINETT+AND+OCONTO+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=UNITED+STATES+HIGHWAY+%28USH%29+41%2C+OCONTO+TO+PESHTIGO%2C+MARINETT+AND+OCONTO+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: April 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A methodology for deriving tissue residue benchmarks for aquatic biota: a case study for fish exposed to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and equivalents. AN - 70163307; 16639896 AB - Tissue residue-based toxicity benchmarks (TRBs) have typically been developed using the results of individual studies selected from the literature. In the past, TRBs have been developed using a point estimate (e.g., LC50 value) reported in a study on a single species deemed to be most closely related to the receptor of interest. Despite attempts to maximize the protectiveness and relevance of TRBs, their relationship to specific receptors remains uncertain, and their general applicability for use in broader ecological risk assessment contexts is limited. This article proposes a novel framework that establishes benchmarks as distributions rather than single-point estimates. Benchmark distributions allow the user to select a tissue concentration that is associated with the protection of a specific percentage of organisms, rather than linked to a specific receptor. A methodology is proposed for searching, reviewing, and analyzing linked, tissue residue effect data to derive benchmark distributions. The approach is demonstrated for contaminants having a dioxin-like mechanism of toxic action and is based on residue effects data for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and equivalents in early life stage fish. The calculated tissue residue benchmarks for 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalency (TEQ) derived from the resulting distribution could range from 0.057- to 0.699-ng TCDD/g lipid depending on the level of protection needed; the lower estimate is protective of 99% of fish species whereas the higher end is protective of 90% of fish species. JF - Integrated environmental assessment and management AU - Steevens, Jeffery A AU - Reiss, Mark R AU - Pawlisz, Andrew V AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experimental Station, CEERD-EP-R, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 38180-6199, USA. jeffery.a.steevens@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 142 EP - 151 VL - 1 IS - 2 SN - 1551-3777, 1551-3777 KW - Environmental Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins KW - Index Medicus KW - Sensitivity and Specificity KW - Animals KW - Reference Values KW - Reproducibility of Results KW - Fishes KW - Lethal Dose 50 KW - Models, Theoretical KW - Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins -- analysis KW - Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins -- pharmacokinetics KW - Environmental Pollutants -- toxicity KW - Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins -- toxicity KW - Environmental Pollutants -- analysis KW - Benchmarking KW - Environmental Pollutants -- pharmacokinetics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/70163307?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=Integrated+environmental+assessment+and+management&rft.atitle=A+methodology+for+deriving+tissue+residue+benchmarks+for+aquatic+biota%3A+a+case+study+for+fish+exposed+to+2%2C3%2C7%2C8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin+and+equivalents.&rft.au=Steevens%2C+Jeffery+A%3BReiss%2C+Mark+R%3BPawlisz%2C+Andrew+V&rft.aulast=Steevens&rft.aufirst=Jeffery&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=142&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Integrated+environmental+assessment+and+management&rft.issn=15513777&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2006-05-09 N1 - Date created - 2006-04-27 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Application of oligonucleotide microarrays for bacterial source tracking of environmental Enterococcus sp. isolates. AN - 70157851; 16705816 AB - In an effort towards adapting new and defensible methods for assessing and managing the risk posed by microbial pollution, we evaluated the utility of oligonucleotide microarrays for bacterial source tracking (BST) of environmental Enterococcus sp. isolates derived from various host sources. Current bacterial source tracking approaches rely on various phenotypic and genotypic methods to identify sources of bacterial contamination resulting from point or non-point pollution. For this study Enterococcus sp. isolates originating from deer, bovine, gull, and human sources were examined using microarrays. Isolates were subjected to Box PCR amplification and the resulting amplification products labeled with Cy5. Fluorescent-labeled templates were hybridized to in-house constructed nonamer oligonucleotide microarrays consisting of 198 probes. Microarray hybridization profiles were obtained using the ArrayPro image analysis software. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) were compared for their ability to visually cluster microarray hybridization profiles based on the environmental source from which the Enterococcus sp. isolates originated. The PCA was visually superior at separating origin-specific clusters, even for as few as 3 factors. A Soft Independent Modeling (SIM) classification confirmed the PCA, resulting in zero misclassifications using 5 factors for each class. The implication of these results for the application of random oligonucleotide microarrays for BST is that, given the reproducibility issues, factor-based variable selection such as in PCA and SIM greatly outperforms dendrogram-based similarity measures such as in HCA and K-Nearest Neighbor KNN. JF - International journal of environmental research and public health AU - Indest, Karl J AU - Betts, Kelley AU - Furey, John S AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. indestk@wes.army.mil Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 175 EP - 185 VL - 2 IS - 1 SN - 1661-7827, 1661-7827 KW - DNA, Bacterial KW - 0 KW - Water Pollutants KW - Index Medicus KW - Water Pollutants -- classification KW - Polymerase Chain Reaction KW - Charadriiformes KW - Animals KW - Water Pollutants -- analysis KW - Cattle KW - Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis KW - Humans KW - Principal Component Analysis KW - Deer KW - Cluster Analysis KW - Enterococcus -- isolation & purification KW - Enterococcus -- classification KW - DNA, Bacterial -- analysis KW - Enterococcus -- genetics KW - Environmental Monitoring -- methods UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/70157851?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=International+journal+of+environmental+research+and+public+health&rft.atitle=Application+of+oligonucleotide+microarrays+for+bacterial+source+tracking+of+environmental+Enterococcus+sp.+isolates.&rft.au=Indest%2C+Karl+J%3BBetts%2C+Kelley%3BFurey%2C+John+S&rft.aulast=Indest&rft.aufirst=Karl&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=175&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+journal+of+environmental+research+and+public+health&rft.issn=16617827&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2006-07-21 N1 - Date created - 2006-05-18 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - SuppNotes - Cited By: Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Dec;65(12):5522-31 [10584013] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Apr;66(4):1340-6 [10742209] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Apr;66(4):1587-94 [10742246] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Jun;66(6):2572-7 [10831440] Pac Symp Biocomput. 2000;:418-29 [10902190] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Sep;66(9):3698-704 [10966379] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Oct;66(10):4571-4 [11010920] Water Res. 2001 Feb;35(2):379-86 [11228989] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001 Apr;67(4):1503-7 [11282597] FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2001 Jul 24;201(2):205-11 [11470363] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Jun;68(6):2690-8 [12039721] J Environ Qual. 2002 Jul-Aug;31(4):1273-8 [12175046] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Dec;68(12):5796-803 [12450798] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Dec;68(12):6361-70 [12450861] Environ Sci Technol. 2002 Dec 15;36(24):5279-88 [12521151] Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(5):1848-56 [15037662] Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;70(7):3795-806 [15240248] Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996 Nov;62(11):3997-4002 [8899986] Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Feb;65(2):472-6 [9925570] Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Jul;65(7):3142-7 [10388715] Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Aug;65(8):3483-6 [10427038] Environ Sci Technol. 2004 Nov 15;38(22):6109-17 [15573614] N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Perchlorate analysis using solid-phase extraction cartridges. AN - 67971728; 15975235 AB - Perchlorate is a compound of increasing concern as an environmental contaminant and is being regulated at increasingly stringent levels. Reliable methods are needed to consistently analyze perchlorate at low concentration levels. This research investigates the use of solid-phase extraction cartridges as an alternative to large-volume injection loops to achieve low-level (microg/L level) perchlorate quantitation. The method involves commercially available strong anion exchange (SAX) cartridges. Water samples are filtered (100 to 1000 mL) using the cartridge, which removes the perchlorate from the solution by anion exchange. Then, after the desired volume is filtered, the perchlorate is extracted using 4 mL of 1% NaOH. In addition, a cleanup method is developed to remove competing anions (chloride, sulfate, and carbonate) that are often found in environmental samples. Analyses are performed with an ion chromatograph using a 10-microL injection loop, yielding a perchlorate method detection limit (MDL) of 210 microg/L. One-liter volumes of a 2-microg/L perchlorate spiked deionized water solution are filtered with SAX SPE. Following extraction and analysis, an MDL of 0.82 microg/L is obtained, comparable to that found for 1-mL injection loop systems (reported as low as 0.53 microg/L). MDL studies are then conducted on perchlorate-amended groundwater (solution concentration of 70 microg/L) and surface water (solution concentration of 10 microg/L) using a filtration volume of 200 mL. The MDLs are 6.7 microg/L for the groundwater and 2.4 microg/L for the surface water. JF - Journal of chromatographic science AU - Medina, Victor F AU - Larson, Steven L AU - Extine, Barbara AU - Bednar, Anthony AD - Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 195 EP - 200 VL - 43 IS - 4 SN - 0021-9665, 0021-9665 KW - Perchlorates KW - 0 KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - perchlorate KW - VLA4NZX2P4 KW - Index Medicus KW - Reproducibility of Results KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- analysis KW - Chromatography, Ion Exchange -- instrumentation KW - Perchlorates -- isolation & purification KW - Perchlorates -- analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/67971728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+chromatographic+science&rft.atitle=Perchlorate+analysis+using+solid-phase+extraction+cartridges.&rft.au=Medina%2C+Victor+F%3BLarson%2C+Steven+L%3BExtine%2C+Barbara%3BBednar%2C+Anthony&rft.aulast=Medina&rft.aufirst=Victor&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=195&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+chromatographic+science&rft.issn=00219665&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2005-08-25 N1 - Date created - 2005-06-24 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Settlement of dredged and contaminated material placement areas; II, Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression, and Desiccation of Dredged Fill input parameters AN - 51713318; 2005-041082 AB - This paper presents practical applications of PSDDF (Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression, and Desiccation of Dredged Fill), which is described in a companion paper by the writers. In addition, consolidation and desiccation parameters for 27 dredged materials are presented from 20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers placement areas to facilitate usage of PSDDF. The consolidation parameters of three cohesionless soils for sand capping and drainage and three compressible foundation materials are included to provide a PSDDF user with suitable parameters for these material types. To reduce the difficulty of obtaining the consolidation and desiccation parameters for dredged material, empirical correlations between the required parameters and soil index properties are presented. JF - Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering AU - Stark, Timothy D AU - Choi, Hangseok AU - Schroeder, Paul R Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 52 EP - 61 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, New York, NY VL - 131 IS - 2 SN - 0733-950X, 0733-950X KW - clay KW - settling KW - finite difference analysis KW - sediments KW - compression KW - plasticity KW - soil mechanics KW - numerical models KW - clastic sediments KW - cohesionless materials KW - drainage KW - stress KW - statistical analysis KW - sedimentation KW - porosity KW - PSDDF model KW - dredged materials KW - case studies KW - physical properties KW - spoils KW - saturation KW - fine-grained materials KW - dehydration KW - regression analysis KW - permeability KW - consolidation KW - storage KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51713318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.atitle=Settlement+of+dredged+and+contaminated+material+placement+areas%3B+II%2C+Primary+Consolidation%2C+Secondary+Compression%2C+and+Desiccation+of+Dredged+Fill+input+parameters&rft.au=Stark%2C+Timothy+D%3BChoi%2C+Hangseok%3BSchroeder%2C+Paul+R&rft.aulast=Stark&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=131&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=52&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.issn=0733950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-950X%282005%29131%3A2%2852%29 L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/wwo LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 14 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - JWPED5 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - case studies; clastic sediments; clay; cohesionless materials; compression; consolidation; dehydration; drainage; dredged materials; field studies; fine-grained materials; finite difference analysis; numerical models; permeability; physical properties; plasticity; porosity; PSDDF model; regression analysis; saturation; sedimentation; sediments; settling; soil mechanics; spoils; statistical analysis; storage; stress DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2005)131:2(52) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Settlement of dredged and contaminated materials placement areas; I, Theory and use of Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression, and Desiccation of Dredged Fill AN - 51713137; 2005-041081 AB - A 1D nonlinear numerical model, Primary Consolidation, Secondary Compression, and Desiccation of Dredged Fill (PSDDF), is presented to predict the settlement of fine-grained dredged material and/or underlying compressible foundation materials that may be over-, under-, or normally consolidated. The three most important natural processes affecting the long-term settlement and thus service life of dredged material placement areas are primary consolidation, secondary compression, and desiccation. Nonlinear finite-strain consolidation theory is used to predict the settlement due to self-weight and surcharge-induced consolidation. The C (sub alpha ) /C (sub c) concept is used to predict the settlement from secondary compression, and an empirical desiccation model is used to describe the settlement from removal of water from confined dredged material by surface drying. This paper describes the modifications and improvements of PSDDF that present new functions and enhanced numerical efficiency. A companion paper describes the input parameters of PSDDF. JF - Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering AU - Stark, Timothy D AU - Choi, Hangseok AU - Schroeder, Paul R Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 43 EP - 51 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Division, New York, NY VL - 131 IS - 2 SN - 0733-950X, 0733-950X KW - clay KW - settling KW - strain KW - one-dimensional models KW - data processing KW - finite element analysis KW - sedimentation rates KW - pore pressure KW - digital simulation KW - sediments KW - overconsolidated materials KW - compression KW - compressibility KW - soil mechanics KW - numerical models KW - clastic sediments KW - drainage KW - stress KW - sedimentation KW - mathematical models KW - porosity KW - boundary conditions KW - PSDDF model KW - dredged materials KW - spoils KW - fine-grained materials KW - dehydration KW - permeability KW - consolidation KW - storage KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51713137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.atitle=Settlement+of+dredged+and+contaminated+materials+placement+areas%3B+I%2C+Theory+and+use+of+Primary+Consolidation%2C+Secondary+Compression%2C+and+Desiccation+of+Dredged+Fill&rft.au=Stark%2C+Timothy+D%3BChoi%2C+Hangseok%3BSchroeder%2C+Paul+R&rft.aulast=Stark&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=131&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=43&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.issn=0733950X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-950X%282005%29131%3A2%2843%29 L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/wwo LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 13 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - JWPED5 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - boundary conditions; clastic sediments; clay; compressibility; compression; consolidation; data processing; dehydration; digital simulation; drainage; dredged materials; fine-grained materials; finite element analysis; mathematical models; numerical models; one-dimensional models; overconsolidated materials; permeability; pore pressure; porosity; PSDDF model; sedimentation; sedimentation rates; sediments; settling; soil mechanics; spoils; storage; strain; stress DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2005)131:2(43) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Late Holocene landscapes and precontact settlement patterns; an example from southeastern Minnesota AN - 51645658; 2006-005100 AB - Fluvial activity in the Upper Mississippi River region during the Late Holocene suggests that alternating periods of erosion, sedimentation and stability occurred. Concurrently, indigenous societies inhabiting the Upper Midwest during this period experienced profound cultural transformations. In southeastern Minnesota, a number of technological innovations and sociological changes occurred from approximately 2,500 to 1,900 years before present. Classified as the Late Archaic-Early Woodland Transition Period, these changes included gradual incorporation of domesticated plants into their diet, burial of the dead in earthen mounds, and the adoption of pottery for storage and cooking. These cultural changes correspond with a period of floodplain stability in the region occurring between approximately 2,500 and 2,000 years before present. This is reflected in the archaeological record through settlement patterns and other cultural signatures. With stable floodplain surfaces, site density increases on floodplain landforms during the Early Woodland. In addition, Early Woodland sites on floodplain landforms are predominately villages, suggesting occupations that are more permanent as opposed to more mobile, specialized activity areas that are more common during the Late Archaic. Therefore, floodplain stability and other environmental variables appear to be a factor in stimulating the Late Archaic-Early Woodland cultural transition. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Perkl, Bradley Edward AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 9 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 37 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Minnesota KW - archaeology KW - Upper Mississippi Valley KW - southeastern Minnesota KW - Quaternary KW - Mississippi Valley KW - erosion KW - floodplains KW - sedimentation KW - stability KW - landforms KW - Woodlands Period KW - Holocene KW - artifacts KW - Cenozoic KW - fluvial features KW - upper Holocene KW - Archaic KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51645658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Late+Holocene+landscapes+and+precontact+settlement+patterns%3B+an+example+from+southeastern+Minnesota&rft.au=Perkl%2C+Bradley+Edward%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Perkl&rft.aufirst=Bradley&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=9&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 39th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - archaeology; Archaic; artifacts; Cenozoic; erosion; floodplains; fluvial features; Holocene; landforms; Minnesota; Mississippi Valley; Quaternary; sedimentation; southeastern Minnesota; stability; United States; upper Holocene; Upper Mississippi Valley; Woodlands Period ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Distribution and fate of energetics on DOD test and training ranges; interim report 5 AN - 51638784; 2006-010352 AB - The potential for generation of environmental contamination in the form of residual munitions constituents during live-fire training activities on military ranges is a significant concern. The objectives of this project were to determine the nature and distribution of the potential contamination and to define transport properties of the constituents. Surface soils associated with impact craters, targets areas, and firing points on U.S. and Canadian ranges were investigated. Residues from high-order, low-order, unconfined charge, and blow-in-place detonations were characterized. Analyses of these residues defined concentrations and spatial distributions of munitions constituents under various firing activities for specific munitions. Special emphasis was placed on developing representative sampling strategies. Residues from low- order detonations were assayed to develop a source term for use in fate and transport models and risk assessment models. Pertinent data from the Massachusetts Military Reservation was reviewed and compared to the database for other ranges. Results demonstrate that a systematic composite sampling protocol developed for artillery ranges improved reproducibility over random composite or discrete sampling protocols. Results of low-order detonation studies confirmed an inverse relationship between energy of detonation and residue generated. While directionality was unpredictable, the residue was dominated by larger particles, which resulted in conservation of the pre-detonation composition of the munition. Several heavy metals were of significant concern at antitank target areas, hand- and rifle-grenade ranges, and small arms ranges. Explosives detected were specific to range activity. Results of sympathetic detonation tests demonstrated that cracking was initiated by flying shrapnel rather than by the shock wave of the first detonation. JF - ERDC Technical Report AU - Pennington, Judith C AU - Jenkins, Thomas F AU - Thiboutot, Sonia AU - Ampleman, Guy AU - Clausen, Jay L AU - Hewitt, Alan D AU - Lewis, Jeff AU - Walsh, Michael R AU - Walsh, Marianne E AU - Ranney, Thomas A AU - Silverblatt, Bryan AU - Marois, Andre AU - Gagnon, Annie AU - Brousseau, Patrick AU - Zufelt, Jon E AU - Poe, Ken AU - Bouchard, Melanie AU - Martel, Richard AU - Walker, Deborah D AU - Ramsey, Charles A AU - Hayes, Charolett A AU - Yost, Sally L AU - Bjella, Kevin AU - Trepanier, Luc AU - Berry, Thomas E AU - Lambert, Dennis J AU - Dube, Pascal AU - Perron, Nancy M Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 204 PB - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS KW - water KW - United States KW - soils KW - concentration KW - degradation KW - pollutants KW - reclamation KW - pollution KW - migration of elements KW - environmental analysis KW - explosives KW - transport KW - Massachusetts KW - decontamination KW - Massachusetts Military Reservation KW - chemical properties KW - testing KW - risk assessment KW - military facilities KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51638784?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=Pennington%2C+Judith+C%3BJenkins%2C+Thomas+F%3BThiboutot%2C+Sonia%3BAmpleman%2C+Guy%3BClausen%2C+Jay+L%3BHewitt%2C+Alan+D%3BLewis%2C+Jeff%3BWalsh%2C+Michael+R%3BWalsh%2C+Marianne+E%3BRanney%2C+Thomas+A%3BSilverblatt%2C+Bryan%3BMarois%2C+Andre%3BGagnon%2C+Annie%3BBrousseau%2C+Patrick%3BZufelt%2C+Jon+E%3BPoe%2C+Ken%3BBouchard%2C+Melanie%3BMartel%2C+Richard%3BWalker%2C+Deborah+D%3BRamsey%2C+Charles+A%3BHayes%2C+Charolett+A%3BYost%2C+Sally+L%3BBjella%2C+Kevin%3BTrepanier%2C+Luc%3BBerry%2C+Thomas+E%3BLambert%2C+Dennis+J%3BDube%2C+Pascal%3BPerron%2C+Nancy+M&rft.aulast=Pennington&rft.aufirst=Judith&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Distribution+and+fate+of+energetics+on+DOD+test+and+training+ranges%3B+interim+report+5&rft.title=Distribution+and+fate+of+energetics+on+DOD+test+and+training+ranges%3B+interim+report+5&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/tr05-2.pdf LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from NTIS database, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, United States N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6900, order number ADA433648NEG, Springfield, VA, United States N1 - PubXState - MS N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 24 tables N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-13 N1 - CODEN - #05678 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - chemical properties; concentration; decontamination; degradation; environmental analysis; explosives; Massachusetts; Massachusetts Military Reservation; migration of elements; military facilities; pollutants; pollution; reclamation; risk assessment; soils; testing; transport; United States; water ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 14, JUNCTION I-20 NEAR HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA TO US 82 NEAR EL DORADO, ARKANSAS, BOSSIER, CLAIBORNE, AND WEBSTER PARISHES, LOUISIANA AND COLUMBIA AND UNION COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. AN - 36441983; 11483 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane, divided, fully controlled access freeway within the Interstate 69 (I-69) corridor between the junction of I-120 in Haughton, Louisiana near Shreveport and US 82 near El Dorado, Arkansas is proposed. The freeway would extend approximately 62 miles. Eight build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Access to the freeway would be controlled via 16 to 18 grade separation structures, and three railroad crossings could be provided. Depending on the alternative considered, estimated cost of the project ranges from $490.5 million to $514.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new freeway would complete the I-69 trade corridor in accordance with legislation associated with the corridor as well as other federal and state legislation. BY reducing intra- and extra-regional shipping costs, improving access to regional land suitable for development, improving access to the regional employment base, and diverting traffic to the region, the freeway would boost regional economic development. Connectivity and accessibility within and between Arkansas and Louisiana communities would be improved, enhancing the National Highway System, more efficient intermodal connections involving truck, rail, air, and maritime port transshipments would be achievable. The potential for accidents on the existing highway system would be reduce significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in displacement of seven to 20 residential structures, 1,286 to 1,440 acres of pine plantation, 1,023 to 1,275 acres of naturally wooded land, 72 to 150 acres of farmland (715 to 1,020 acres of prime farmland traversed), 212 to 290 acres of cleared land, 29 to 46 acres of urban land, six to seven acres of scenic streams, 249 to 365 acres of floodplain, up to 34 acres of the Sparta Aquifer recharge area, up to one archaeological site, 273 to 517 acres of chicot terrace, 67 to 107 acres of wetlands, and three to eight ponds. One to three minority residences and three to six low-income residences would be displaced. Crossroads would be terminated at 55 to 60 points, impeding local access in some areas. From 34 to 42 petroleum and two to three chemical pipeline crossings as well as three railroad crossings and possibly one water well crossing would be necessary, Four or five oil/gas well sites would lie within the active rights-of-way, and another one to three such sites would lie within the inactive rights-of-way. The freeway would traverse 62 to 91 streams and require alteration of 36,209 to 63,217 linear feet of stream corridor. Approximately 0.3 to 7.8 acres of habitat for federally protected species lies within the 0.5-mile rights-of-way buffer, and the project would affect 936 to 1,158 acres of habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 37 to 86 residences. Scenic use of Bayou Dorcheat would be adversely affected. Construction workers would encounter nine to 11 hazardous materials 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). JF - EPA number: 050143, 411 pages, April 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-01-D KW - Birds KW - Chemicals KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Louisiana 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/36441983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&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: April 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERNAN LAKE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ID PFH 80), KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36435962; 11488 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction or resurfacing of 10.7 miles of Fernan Lake Road in Kootenai County, Idaho is proposed. Fernan Lake Road extends between the city of Coeur d'Alene and Fernan Saddle, a geographic feature in the Idaho Panhandle National Forests (IPNF). Fernan Lake Road is the most heavily used road in the Coeur d'Alene River Ranger District of the IPNF. The road has a much higher accident rate than similar roads statewide. East Side Highway District reports that the facility suffers from the poorest conditions of all the roads it maintains. The road lacks storm water treatment facilities to protect the quality of water in Fernan Lake and Creek. This final EIS considers three build alternatives and a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative G) would reconstruct the road from the intersection of Fernan Lake Road with Lakeview Drive and Fernan Court to mile post 5.0 where IPNF management of lands begins. The first segment would extend follow the existing alignment along the north shore of Fernan Lake, across Lulypad Bay in the northeast part of the lake, and end at the east end of the lake. The second segment would extend on a realigned rights-of-way northeastward, climbing the relatively steep upper valley of Fernan Creek, and ending the IPNF management line. From the IPNF line to the large parking lot at on Fernan Saddle, the project would involve rehabilitation of the existing road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction of the road would maintain a safe transportation link between Coeur d'Alene and IPNF at Fernan Saddle that would efficiently accommodate traffic volumes projected through 2026. Upgrading of storm water facilities along the road would protect water quality in Fernan Creek and Lake. The project would raise the road elevation above the 100-year floodplain elevation and correct alignment and slope stability problems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration of the first two segments of the roadway would involve modification of a facility eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Construction activities would temporarily affect wildlife and terrestrial, aquatic, and wetland habitat. Recreational enjoyment of the area would be degraded during construction, and the landscape would be altered somewhat. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0089D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050148, 371 pages and maps, April 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-04-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Idaho KW - Idaho Panhandle National Forests KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FERNAN+LAKE+ROAD+SAFETY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+%28ID+PFH+80%29%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=FERNAN+LAKE+ROAD+SAFETY+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT+%28ID+PFH+80%29%2C+KOOTENAI+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 14, JUNCTION I-20 NEAR HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA TO US 82 NEAR EL DORADO, ARKANSAS, BOSSIER, CLAIBORNE, AND WEBSTER PARISHES, LOUISIANA AND COLUMBIA AND UNION COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 14, JUNCTION I-20 NEAR HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA TO US 82 NEAR EL DORADO, ARKANSAS, BOSSIER, CLAIBORNE, AND WEBSTER PARISHES, LOUISIANA AND COLUMBIA AND UNION COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. AN - 36367484; 050629D-050143_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane, divided, fully controlled access freeway within the Interstate 69 (I-69) corridor between the junction of I-120 in Haughton, Louisiana near Shreveport and US 82 near El Dorado, Arkansas is proposed. The freeway would extend approximately 62 miles. Eight build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Access to the freeway would be controlled via 16 to 18 grade separation structures, and three railroad crossings could be provided. Depending on the alternative considered, estimated cost of the project ranges from $490.5 million to $514.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new freeway would complete the I-69 trade corridor in accordance with legislation associated with the corridor as well as other federal and state legislation. BY reducing intra- and extra-regional shipping costs, improving access to regional land suitable for development, improving access to the regional employment base, and diverting traffic to the region, the freeway would boost regional economic development. Connectivity and accessibility within and between Arkansas and Louisiana communities would be improved, enhancing the National Highway System, more efficient intermodal connections involving truck, rail, air, and maritime port transshipments would be achievable. The potential for accidents on the existing highway system would be reduce significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in displacement of seven to 20 residential structures, 1,286 to 1,440 acres of pine plantation, 1,023 to 1,275 acres of naturally wooded land, 72 to 150 acres of farmland (715 to 1,020 acres of prime farmland traversed), 212 to 290 acres of cleared land, 29 to 46 acres of urban land, six to seven acres of scenic streams, 249 to 365 acres of floodplain, up to 34 acres of the Sparta Aquifer recharge area, up to one archaeological site, 273 to 517 acres of chicot terrace, 67 to 107 acres of wetlands, and three to eight ponds. One to three minority residences and three to six low-income residences would be displaced. Crossroads would be terminated at 55 to 60 points, impeding local access in some areas. From 34 to 42 petroleum and two to three chemical pipeline crossings as well as three railroad crossings and possibly one water well crossing would be necessary, Four or five oil/gas well sites would lie within the active rights-of-way, and another one to three such sites would lie within the inactive rights-of-way. The freeway would traverse 62 to 91 streams and require alteration of 36,209 to 63,217 linear feet of stream corridor. Approximately 0.3 to 7.8 acres of habitat for federally protected species lies within the 0.5-mile rights-of-way buffer, and the project would affect 936 to 1,158 acres of habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 37 to 86 residences. Scenic use of Bayou Dorcheat would be adversely affected. Construction workers would encounter nine to 11 hazardous materials 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). JF - EPA number: 050143, 411 pages, April 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-01-D KW - Birds KW - Chemicals KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Spills KW - Pipelines KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Louisiana 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/36367484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+14%2C+JUNCTION+I-20+NEAR+HAUGHTON%2C+LOUISIANA+TO+US+82+NEAR+EL+DORADO%2C+ARKANSAS%2C+BOSSIER%2C+CLAIBORNE%2C+AND+WEBSTER+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+COLUMBIA+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&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: April 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Isolation and characterization of heterotrophic bacteria able to grow aerobically with quaternary ammonium alcohols as sole source of carbon and nitrogen AN - 20157652; 6445232 AB - The quaternary ammonium alcohols (QAAs) 2, 3-dihydroxypropyl-trimethyl-ammonium (TM), dimethyl-diethanol-ammonium (DM) and methyl-triethanol-ammonium (MM) are hydrolysis products of their parent esterquat surfactants, which are widely used as softeners in fabric care. We isolated several bacteria growing with QAAs as the sole source of carbon and nitrogen. The strains were compared with a previously isolated TM-degrading bacterium, which was identified as a representative of the species Pseudomonas putida (Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 24 (2001) 252). Two bacteria were isolated with DM, referred to as strains DM 1 and DM 2, respectively. Based on 16S-rDNA analysis, they provided 97% (DM 1) and 98% (DM 2) identities to the closest related strain Zoogloea ramigera Itzigsohn 1868 super(AL). Both strains were long, slim, motile rods but only DM 1 showed the floc forming activity, which is typical for representatives of the genus Zoogloea. Using MM we isolated a Gram-negative, non-motile rod referred to as strain MM 1. The 16S-rDNA sequence of the isolated bacterium revealed 94% identities (best match) to Rhodobacter sphaeroides only. The strains MM 1 and DM 1 exclusively grew with the QAA which was used for their isolation. DM 2 was also utilizing TM as sole source of carbon and nitrogen. However, all of the isolated bacteria were growing with the natural and structurally related compound choline. JF - Systematic and Applied Microbiology AU - Kaech, A AU - Vallotton, N AU - Egli, T AD - Swiss Federal Institute for Water Resources and Water Pollution Control (EAWAG), Environmental Microbiology, P.O. Box 611, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland, thomas.egli@eawag.ch Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 230 EP - 241 PB - Elsevier GmbH, Office Jena, P.O. Box 100537 Jena D-07705 Germany, [mailto:journals@elsevier.com] VL - 28 IS - 3 SN - 0723-2020, 0723-2020 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology KW - Biodegradation KW - Cationic surfactants KW - Esterquat KW - Zoogloea ramigera KW - Quaternary ammonium alcohol KW - Phylogeny KW - Ammonium KW - Choline KW - Rhodobacter sphaeroides KW - Pharmacology KW - Strains KW - Hydrolysis KW - Fabrics KW - Zoogloea KW - Carbon KW - alcohols KW - Microorganisms KW - Heterotrophic bacteria KW - Pseudomonas putida KW - Surfactants KW - Rods KW - Metabolism KW - Nitrogen KW - Ammonium compounds KW - Q1 08206:Physiology, biochemistry, biophysics KW - J 02710:Identification, taxonomy and typing KW - A 01300:Methods UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20157652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Amicrobiologyb&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Systematic+and+Applied+Microbiology&rft.atitle=Isolation+and+characterization+of+heterotrophic+bacteria+able+to+grow+aerobically+with+quaternary+ammonium+alcohols+as+sole+source+of+carbon+and+nitrogen&rft.au=Kaech%2C+A%3BVallotton%2C+N%3BEgli%2C+T&rft.aulast=Kaech&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=230&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Systematic+and+Applied+Microbiology&rft.issn=07232020&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.syapm.2004.12.004 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Phylogeny; Pharmacology; Microorganisms; Strains; Surfactants; Hydrolysis; Metabolism; Ammonium compounds; Fabrics; Ammonium; Choline; Carbon; alcohols; Heterotrophic bacteria; Rods; Nitrogen; Zoogloea; Rhodobacter sphaeroides; Zoogloea ramigera; Pseudomonas putida DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2004.12.004 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Assessing the effect of hydrophilic soil amendments on riparian plant survival in arid and semi-arid environments AN - 19610409; 7327857 AB - Riparian restoration efforts in arid and semi-arid regions are extremely challenging to conduct and frequently unsuccessful where irrigation is not possible, or where the water table occurs well below the root zone of newly established vegetation. Lack of irrigation or lowered water tables can preclude adequate soil moisture for riparian plants to become established, or to survive after initially becoming established. This paper describes field investigations at three sites in southern Arizona (USA) to test the efficacy of two hydrophilic soil amendments to improve survival of woody riparian plantings in the absence of irrigation. Unlike numerous studies that show the contrary, a commercially available hydrogel had no significant influence on plant survival or condition when compared with trees receiving no amendment. Conversely, a relatively new amendment called DriWater improved both survival and plant condition at two of the three study sites. This amendment shows significant promise for revegetating arid areas where irrigation is not possible. However, because of potentially high cost, the use of DriWater should be considered only when traditional irrigation methods are unavailable. JF - Water Resources Management III AU - Fischer, R A AU - Beiner, C D A2 - de Conceicao Cunha, M A2 - Brebbia, CA (eds) Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 SP - 9 EP - 675 PB - Computational Mechanics Inc., 25 Bridge St. Billerica MA 01821 USA SN - 1845640071 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Irrigation KW - Survival KW - Field Tests KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Table KW - Soil Amendments KW - Root Zone KW - USA, Arizona KW - Irrigation Water KW - Water Potentials KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - SW 1060:Conservation in agricultural use UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19610409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Fischer%2C+R+A%3BBeiner%2C+C+D&rft.aulast=Fischer&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=667&rft.isbn=1845640071&rft.btitle=Assessing+the+effect+of+hydrophilic+soil+amendments+on+riparian+plant+survival+in+arid+and+semi-arid+environments&rft.title=Assessing+the+effect+of+hydrophilic+soil+amendments+on+riparian+plant+survival+in+arid+and+semi-arid+environments&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Dredging Effects on Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Distribution in a New England Small Boat Harbor AN - 19444431; 7170600 AB - While speculation on effects of dredging on seagrass beds is plentiful, actual empirical data documenting these effects are not. In this study, acoustic-based seagrass mapping techniques were used to generate detailed maps of seagrass distribution before and after dredging operations. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) within Scituate Harbor, MA, was monitored during mid-summer in 2001, 2003, and 2004; navigation maintenance dredging of the harbor was performed during fall 2002. Similar surveys were also performed during the same timeframe at an undredged harbor near Wood Island, ME. Two types of potential impacts were examined. Direct impacts involved physical removal of vegetation along with the dredged sediments. Indirect impacts in adjacent undredged areas may occur as a result of increased turbidity and/or siltation associated with dredging activities. Using hydroacoustic techniques, the authors were able to easily map and quantify direct impacts to eelgrass resources. Assessment of indirect impacts, however, was more complex. In the first post-dredging survey, a substantial reduction in coverage occurred in adjoining undredged areas, suggesting possible indirect impacts. This was followed by a modest recovery between the first and second post-dredging years. However, monitoring of other undredged sites within the region showed natural year-to-year variations in eelgrass coverage to be almost as large as those occurring at the dredged site. Results emphasize the need for long-term data to discern any potential effects of dredging on seagrass dynamics as opposed to a host of other factors contributing to high variability in measured parameters. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Sabol, B AU - Shafer, D AU - Lord, E Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Marine KW - Sea Grasses KW - Marinas KW - Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Water resources KW - Navigation KW - Silting KW - Environmental factors KW - Marine plants (see also marine algae, seaweeds) KW - Assessments KW - USA, New England KW - Dredging KW - Sea grass KW - Harbors KW - Zostera marina KW - Turbidity KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444431?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=Sabol%2C+B%3BShafer%2C+D%3BLord%2C+E&rft.aulast=Sabol&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Dredging+Effects+on+Eelgrass+%28Zostera+marina%29+Distribution+in+a+New+England+Small+Boat+Harbor&rft.title=Dredging+Effects+on+Eelgrass+%28Zostera+marina%29+Distribution+in+a+New+England+Small+Boat+Harbor&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 - RPRT T1 - Distribution and Fate of Energetics on DoD Test and Training Ranges: Interim Report 5 AN - 19443923; 7170624 AB - The potential for generation of environmental contamination in the form of residual munitions constituents during live-fire training activities on military ranges is a significant concern. The objectives of this project were to determine the nature and distribution of the potential contamination and to define transport properties of the constituents. Surface soils associated with impact craters, targets areas, and firing points on U.S. and Canadian ranges were investigated. Residues from high-order, low-order, unconfined charge, and blow-in-place detonations were characterized. Analyses of these residues defined concentrations and spatial distributions of munitions constituents under various firing activities for specific munitions. Special emphasis was placed on developing representative sampling strategies. Residues from low-order detonations were assayed to develop a source term for use in fate and transport models and risk assessment models. Pertinent data from the Massachusetts Military Reservation was reviewed and compared to the database for other ranges. Results demonstrate that a systematic composite sampling protocol developed for artillery ranges improved reproducibility over random composite or discrete sampling protocols. Results of low-order detonation studies confirmed an inverse relationship between energy of detonation and residue generated. While directionality was unpredictable, the residue was dominated by larger particles, which resulted in conservation of the pre-detonation composition of the munition. Several heavy metals were of significant concern at antitank target areas, hand- and rifle-grenade ranges, and small arms ranges. Explosives detected were specific to range activity. Results of sympathetic detonation tests demonstrated that cracking was initiated by flying shrapnel rather than by the shock wave of the first detonation. High-order detonations generate by blow-in-place detonations resulted in low-milligram quantities of explosives residue. The results of this project define the relationship between various training activities and residues of energetic materials, which provides a basis for sound management strategies supporting training range sustainment without conflicting with objectives of environmental stewardship. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Pennington, J C AU - Berry, TE AU - Jenkins, T F AU - Hewitt, AD AU - Lambert, D J AU - Walsh, ME AU - Perron, N M AU - Walsh, M R AU - Zufelt, JE AU - Bjella, K L AU - Ampleman, G AU - Thiboutot, S AU - Lewis, J AU - Gagnon, A Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - Apr 2005 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Risk assessment KW - USA, Massachusetts KW - Laboratory testing KW - Residues KW - Training KW - Particulates KW - Soil contamination KW - spatial distribution KW - craters KW - Reviews KW - Conservation KW - Explosives KW - Military KW - heavy metals KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19443923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Pennington%2C+J+C%3BBerry%2C+TE%3BJenkins%2C+T+F%3BHewitt%2C+AD%3BLambert%2C+D+J%3BWalsh%2C+ME%3BPerron%2C+N+M%3BWalsh%2C+M+R%3BZufelt%2C+JE%3BBjella%2C+K+L%3BAmpleman%2C+G%3BThiboutot%2C+S%3BLewis%2C+J%3BGagnon%2C+A&rft.aulast=Pennington&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Distribution+and+Fate+of+Energetics+on+DoD+Test+and+Training+Ranges%3A+Interim+Report+5&rft.title=Distribution+and+Fate+of+Energetics+on+DoD+Test+and+Training+Ranges%3A+Interim+Report+5&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - A Survey of the Invasive Aquatic and Riparian Plants of the Lower Rio Grande AN - 19442609; 7173671 AB - Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) has exhibited extensive range expansion along the Rio Grande since its first discovery in early 1990 and is now found in areas far removed from the original infestation (Brownsville, TX). Hydrilla, a nonindigenous aquatic plant species, has been implicated in restricted water delivery, inaccurate water accounting, and an overall breakdown of system maintenance. In addition, the presence of hydrilla has had a decided impact on native flora by the formation of extensive monocultures in many areas. In 2001 and 2003, surveys were conducted starting below Amistad Reservoir to immediately below Falcon Reservoir to assess the distribution and expansion of the hydrilla infestations and document the presence of other invasive aquatic and riparian plant species. Several small infestations of hydrilla, as well as several other invasive aquatic and riparian plant species, were observed during the 2003 survey. Small sections of the river were surveyed. A total of six introduced plant species were observed, including hydrilla, Eurasian watermilfoil, parrotfeather, elephant-ear, giant cane, and salt cedar. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Owens, C S AU - Grodowitz, MJ AU - Nibling, F Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - April 2005 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Rivers KW - Water reservoirs KW - Laboratories KW - USA, New Mexico, Lower Rio Grande KW - Aquatic plants KW - Surveys KW - Freshwater KW - Expansion KW - Monoculture KW - Accounting KW - Hydrilla verticillata KW - Maintenance KW - Colonization KW - Infestation KW - Aquatic Macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae) KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Hydrilla KW - Riparian vegetation KW - Waterways KW - Introduced species KW - Reservoirs KW - Venezuela, Falcon KW - Dispersion KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19442609?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=Owens%2C+C+S%3BGrodowitz%2C+MJ%3BNibling%2C+F&rft.aulast=Owens&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=A+Survey+of+the+Invasive+Aquatic+and+Riparian+Plants+of+the+Lower+Rio+Grande&rft.title=A+Survey+of+the+Invasive+Aquatic+and+Riparian+Plants+of+the+Lower+Rio+Grande&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 - Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Decision Making AN - 17362302; 6434315 AB - Decision making in environmental projects can be complex and seemingly intractable, principally because of the inherent trade-offs between sociopolitical, environmental, ecological, and economic factors. The selection of appropriate remedial and abatement strategies for contaminated sites, land use planning, and regulatory processes often involves multiple additional criteria such as the distribution of costs and benefits, environmental impacts for different populations, safety, ecological risk, or human values. Some of these criteria cannot be easily condensed into a monetary value, partly because environmental concerns often involve ethical and moral principles that may not be related to any economic use or value. Furthermore, even if it were possible to aggregate multiple criteria rankings into a common unit, this approach would not always be desirable because the ability to track conflicting stakeholder preferences may be lost in the process. Consequently, selecting from among many different alternatives often involves making trade-offs that fail to satisfy 1 or more stakeholder groups. Nevertheless, considerable research in the area of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) has made available practical methods for applying scientific decision theoretical approaches to complex multicriteria problems. This paper presents a review of the available literature and provides recommendations for applying MCDA techniques in environmental projects. A generalized framework for decision analysis is proposed to highlight the fundamental ingredients for more structured and tractable environmental decision making. JF - Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management AU - Kiker, G A AU - Bridges, T S AU - Varghese, A AU - Seager, T P AU - Linkov, I AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, gregory.a.kiker@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - Apr 2005 SP - 95 EP - 108 VL - 1 IS - 2 SN - 1551-3777, 1551-3777 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Development projects KW - economic factors KW - Environmental impact KW - decision making KW - environmental perception KW - Land use KW - Cost-benefit analysis KW - Ethics KW - Reviews KW - Economics KW - environmental assessment KW - stakeholders KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17362302?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=Integrated+Environmental+Assessment+and+Management&rft.atitle=Application+of+Multicriteria+Decision+Analysis+in+Environmental+Decision+Making&rft.au=Kiker%2C+G+A%3BBridges%2C+T+S%3BVarghese%2C+A%3BSeager%2C+T+P%3BLinkov%2C+I&rft.aulast=Kiker&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=95&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Integrated+Environmental+Assessment+and+Management&rft.issn=15513777&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Cost-benefit analysis; Development projects; economic factors; Reviews; Ethics; Economics; Environmental impact; environmental assessment; decision making; environmental perception; stakeholders; Land use ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Coupling of Engineering and Biological Models for Ecosystem Analysis AN - 16191809; 6179542 AB - Robust ecosystem analysis of water resource systems remains elusive. A principle reason is the difficulty in linking engineering models used to simulate physicochemical processes associated with project design or operation with biological models used to simulate biological population attributes. A retrospective shows that each modeling tradition can be generally assigned (with exceptions) into either an Eulerian or Lagrangian reference framework. Eulerian and Lagrangian reference frameworks can be coupled to create a new synthesis, the Coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian Hybrid Ecological Modeling Concept (CEL Hybrid Concept), capable of simulating different ecosystem processes that range widely in spatial and temporal scale. The foundation of the CEL Hybrid Concept is the coupler, a collection of algorithms based on conservation principles that transform and conserve data in a way that allows the two frameworks to share a common information base. The coupling algorithm allows the simulation to aggregate, disaggregate, and translate information, as required by each framework, so that processes that differ substantially in scale can each be adequately simulated. The coupled system is illustrated by linking a fish swim path selection model with a hydrodynamic and water quality model. JF - Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management AU - Nestler, J M AU - Goodwin, R A AU - Loucks, D P AD - Environmental Laboratory (CEERD-EP-W), U.S. Army Engineer, Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA, john.m.nestler@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/04// PY - 2005 DA - Apr 2005 SP - 101 EP - 109 VL - 131 IS - 2 SN - 0733-9496, 0733-9496 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Resource management KW - Hydrodynamics KW - Ecosystems KW - Algorithms KW - Water resources KW - Ecology KW - Engineering KW - Synthesis KW - Mathematical models KW - Water Quality KW - Bases KW - Simulation KW - Aggregates KW - Model Studies KW - Conservation KW - Water Resources KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - P 9000:ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION KW - SW 4010:Techniques of planning UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16191809?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+Water+Resources+Planning+and+Management&rft.atitle=Coupling+of+Engineering+and+Biological+Models+for+Ecosystem+Analysis&rft.au=Nestler%2C+J+M%3BGoodwin%2C+R+A%3BLoucks%2C+D+P&rft.aulast=Nestler&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2005-04-01&rft.volume=131&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=101&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Water+Resources+Planning+and+Management&rft.issn=07339496&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9496%282005%29131%3A2%28101%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Ecology; Engineering; Resource management; Mathematical models; Ecosystems; Hydrodynamics; Simulation; Water resources; Bases; Water Quality; Algorithms; Conservation; Synthesis; Aggregates; Water Resources; Model Studies DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2005)131:2(101) ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA. AN - 36438008; 11479 AB - PURPOSE: The maintenance and improvement of the navigational facilities associated with the McClellan Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS) in Arkansas and Oklahoma are proposed. The ongoing operation and maintenance of the existing one-foot navigational channel on MKARNS entails the use of river training structures as well as periodic dredging at some locations within the navigation channel. Since the completion of the MKARNS in 1971, some authorized dredged material disposal sites have reached capacity and new disposal sites are required to continue channel maintenance activities. Additional, the construction of new river training structures would facilitate the maintenance of the nine-foot channel. Sustained high flows on the MKARNS have adversely affected the safety and efficiency of commercial navigation and have resulted in flood damages along the river. Commercial navigation in not operating at optimum productivity within the MKARNS since it's one-foot draft channel limits towboat loads compared to the Lower Mississippi River's authorized 12-foot draft channel. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would consist of maintaining the existing MKARNS operation system, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve river flow management, MKARNS channel depth increases, and navigation depth maintenance. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would implement operations only flow management, deepening of the channel to a depth of 12 feet from the channel mouth of Catoose, and maintenance of the channel at that depth via periodic dredging and the addition of new dredged spoil disposal sites. The project would include 91 new and 142 modified river training structures and seven new and 13 modified revetments. The estimated benefit-cost ratio is 1.89, resulting in annual positive net benefits of $10.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The deepened channel would add capacity to MKARNS, allowing it to dovetail seamlessly with the Mississippi River navigational channel. Damage to tugs and barges would decline significantly and the channel would be navigable under most weather conditions. Flood damages associated with the nine-foot channel would be eliminated and future flood damages would be reduced. Benefits to hydropower operations would be worth $410,000 annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging would destroy benthic communities and increase turbidity significantly in the short-term. In some cases, contaminated sediments would be disturbed and contaminants released into the water column. Increases in barge traffic and sediment suspension would occur after. Bank damage via erosion and collisions would continue, by increased capacity and maneuverability would reduce these impacts in some areas. Conversion of 1,602 acres of terrestrial habitat for dredge disposal sites could disturb or kill American burying beetles, a federally protected insect species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L. 91-62), and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 JF - EPA number: 050139, 912 pages and maps, March 30, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Insects KW - Navigation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Waterways KW - Arkansas KW - Arkansas River KW - Oklahoma KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ARKANSAS+RIVER+NAVIGATION+STUDY%2C+ARKANSAS+AND+OKLAHOMA.&rft.title=ARKANSAS+RIVER+NAVIGATION+STUDY%2C+ARKANSAS+AND+OKLAHOMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas and Tulsa, Oklahoma; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION STUDY, ARKANSAS AND OKLAHOMA. AN - 36367698; 050681D-050139_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The maintenance and improvement of the navigational facilities associated with the McClellan Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System (MKARNS) in Arkansas and Oklahoma are proposed. The ongoing operation and maintenance of the existing one-foot navigational channel on MKARNS entails the use of river training structures as well as periodic dredging at some locations within the navigation channel. Since the completion of the MKARNS in 1971, some authorized dredged material disposal sites have reached capacity and new disposal sites are required to continue channel maintenance activities. Additional, the construction of new river training structures would facilitate the maintenance of the nine-foot channel. Sustained high flows on the MKARNS have adversely affected the safety and efficiency of commercial navigation and have resulted in flood damages along the river. Commercial navigation in not operating at optimum productivity within the MKARNS since it's one-foot draft channel limits towboat loads compared to the Lower Mississippi River's authorized 12-foot draft channel. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would consist of maintaining the existing MKARNS operation system, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve river flow management, MKARNS channel depth increases, and navigation depth maintenance. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would implement operations only flow management, deepening of the channel to a depth of 12 feet from the channel mouth of Catoose, and maintenance of the channel at that depth via periodic dredging and the addition of new dredged spoil disposal sites. The project would include 91 new and 142 modified river training structures and seven new and 13 modified revetments. The estimated benefit-cost ratio is 1.89, resulting in annual positive net benefits of $10.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The deepened channel would add capacity to MKARNS, allowing it to dovetail seamlessly with the Mississippi River navigational channel. Damage to tugs and barges would decline significantly and the channel would be navigable under most weather conditions. Flood damages associated with the nine-foot channel would be eliminated and future flood damages would be reduced. Benefits to hydropower operations would be worth $410,000 annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging would destroy benthic communities and increase turbidity significantly in the short-term. In some cases, contaminated sediments would be disturbed and contaminants released into the water column. Increases in barge traffic and sediment suspension would occur after. Bank damage via erosion and collisions would continue, by increased capacity and maneuverability would reduce these impacts in some areas. Conversion of 1,602 acres of terrestrial habitat for dredge disposal sites could disturb or kill American burying beetles, a federally protected insect species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L. 91-62), and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 JF - EPA number: 050139, 912 pages and maps, March 30, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Insects KW - Navigation KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Waterways KW - Arkansas KW - Arkansas River KW - Oklahoma KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ARKANSAS+RIVER+NAVIGATION+STUDY%2C+ARKANSAS+AND+OKLAHOMA.&rft.title=ARKANSAS+RIVER+NAVIGATION+STUDY%2C+ARKANSAS+AND+OKLAHOMA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas and Tulsa, Oklahoma; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULY 1999). AN - 36436136; 11475 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 toe 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 the establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. This draft supplemental EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would include a pervious cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprin 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 EIS, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050135, 216 pages, March 24, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water 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/36436136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1999%29.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1999%29.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULY 1999). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HERBERT HOOVER DIKE MAJOR REHABIITATION EVALUATION REPORT, LAKE OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OF JULY 1999). AN - 36390426; 11475-050135_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 toe 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 the establishment of grasses. A 48-inch-diameter perforated culvert system would collect and convey seepage flows to controlled outlets emptying into existing drainage canals. This draft supplemental EIS considers five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative would include a pervious cutoff wall and relief trench on the landward slope of the dike and within the HDD's existing footprin 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 EIS, see 99-0426D, Volume 23, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050135, 216 pages, March 24, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water 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/36390426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1999%29.&rft.title=HERBERT+HOOVER+DIKE+MAJOR+REHABIITATION+EVALUATION+REPORT%2C+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+OF+JULY+1999%29.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: March 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS. AN - 36438065; 11456 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration plan for the lower Colorado River basin of Texas, with particular emphasis on the city of Austin, is proposed. The 18,300-square-mile study area extends 480 miles along the lower Colorado River from O.H. Ivie Reservoir downstream to the Gulf of Mexico. The area contains several major tributaries of the Colorado River, most notably the Llano River, Pedernales River, San Saba River, Pecan Bayou, Sandy Creek, and Onion Creek. Previous studies conducted in the study area have concluded that significant flood risks exist along the main stream and some of its tributaries in the Austin area. The proposed action would implement all Army Corps of Engineers' flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration measures in the lower basin, including the interim feasibility studies described in the Lower Colorado River Basin Study and the Corps' Mad Island and Austin Area Lakes Section 206 ecosystem restoration projects. The action could include any combination of structural, non-structural, and ecosystem restoration measures, at different scales, to serve as a future project or multiple projects. Structural measures could include one or a combination of levees, floodwalls, relief channels, diversion channels, tunnels, channel improvements, dry detention basins, detention basins and multipurpose reservoirs. Non-structural measures could consist of the evacuation of the 25-year floodplain via buyouts, flood warning systems, flood proofing, changes in gate operations at existing reservoirs, and zoning. Ecosystem restoration measures could include habitat preservation, removal of invasive species, restoration of native species, and the removal or construction of structures. In addition to the action alternatives, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. The proposed action would include implementation of recommendations under interim feasibility studies for Highland Lakes, Shoal Creek, Walnut Creek, Onion Creek, and Wharton. Section 206 studies involve the abovementioned Mad Island and Austin Area Lakes recommendations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood damages, restore and protect environmentally sensitive areas, improve water conservation, and provide recreational opportunities in the Austin area. Protection from flood damage would promote human health and safety and boost economic developed in the protected areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Flood control structures would alter stream hydrology, including flow and sediment regimes and bank erosion control measures, and result in displacement of vegetation and soils and residences and businesses in some areas. Ecosystem protection provisions would restrict land us in some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1936, Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), River and Harbor Act of 1937, River and Harbor Act of 1945, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050116, 316 pages and maps, March 17, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Creeks KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Flood Control Act of 1936, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438065?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO+RIVER%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO+RIVER%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN, COLORADO RIVER, TEXAS. AN - 36367591; 050677D-050116_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration plan for the lower Colorado River basin of Texas, with particular emphasis on the city of Austin, is proposed. The 18,300-square-mile study area extends 480 miles along the lower Colorado River from O.H. Ivie Reservoir downstream to the Gulf of Mexico. The area contains several major tributaries of the Colorado River, most notably the Llano River, Pedernales River, San Saba River, Pecan Bayou, Sandy Creek, and Onion Creek. Previous studies conducted in the study area have concluded that significant flood risks exist along the main stream and some of its tributaries in the Austin area. The proposed action would implement all Army Corps of Engineers' flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration measures in the lower basin, including the interim feasibility studies described in the Lower Colorado River Basin Study and the Corps' Mad Island and Austin Area Lakes Section 206 ecosystem restoration projects. The action could include any combination of structural, non-structural, and ecosystem restoration measures, at different scales, to serve as a future project or multiple projects. Structural measures could include one or a combination of levees, floodwalls, relief channels, diversion channels, tunnels, channel improvements, dry detention basins, detention basins and multipurpose reservoirs. Non-structural measures could consist of the evacuation of the 25-year floodplain via buyouts, flood warning systems, flood proofing, changes in gate operations at existing reservoirs, and zoning. Ecosystem restoration measures could include habitat preservation, removal of invasive species, restoration of native species, and the removal or construction of structures. In addition to the action alternatives, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative. The proposed action would include implementation of recommendations under interim feasibility studies for Highland Lakes, Shoal Creek, Walnut Creek, Onion Creek, and Wharton. Section 206 studies involve the abovementioned Mad Island and Austin Area Lakes recommendations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would reduce flood damages, restore and protect environmentally sensitive areas, improve water conservation, and provide recreational opportunities in the Austin area. Protection from flood damage would promote human health and safety and boost economic developed in the protected areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Flood control structures would alter stream hydrology, including flow and sediment regimes and bank erosion control measures, and result in displacement of vegetation and soils and residences and businesses in some areas. Ecosystem protection provisions would restrict land us in some areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1936, Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), River and Harbor Act of 1937, River and Harbor Act of 1945, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050116, 316 pages and maps, March 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Creeks KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Colorado River KW - Texas KW - Flood Control Act of 1936, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO+RIVER%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+LOWER+COLORADO+RIVER+BASIN%2C+COLORADO+RIVER%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: March 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATERWAY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK WATERSHED, AFFECTING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY OF AVILA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36432264; 11466 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a waterway management program for the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed in the city of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County, including the community of Avila Beach, is proposed. The program would consist of a combination of policies, programs, and plans to address, in a regional or watershed-wide manner, flooding and flood control along San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries. The program would be designed to allow the City/Zone 9 to obtain either an Army Corps of Engineers regional general permit or an individual permit for Category 1 and 2 activities described in the play; Category 3 projects (capital improvements) would require a second-tier environmental review. This programmatic draft EIS addresses the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and alternatives to the capital improvement program. Program elements and mitigation measures fall into the following categories: stream maintenance and management, bank stabilization and repair, channel design, constructed natural channel designs, bypass channel designs, modified channel designs, development drainage design standards, floodplain management policies, revegetation activities, exotic species control, riparian habitat improvement, aquatic improvement, and capital improvement projects. The EIS considers five capital improvement projects. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Projects conducted under the management plan would reduce flooding, sedimentation, and bank and channel bed erosion and improve water quality and otherwise contribute to ecosystem restoration within the watershed. Development in the area would proceed as a planned, measured pace and to the extent amenable to watershed health and local economic needs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Spawning gravels would be revolved during stream improvements, and bank stabilization repair activities and various channel design and improvement measures would disturb aquatic habitat. Stockpiles of removed sediment, channel design alterations, the presence of bypass channels, and retention and other structures would mar visual aesthetics in the affected corridors. Privvate property, including structures, would be displaced and business practices would be impeded by channel work and construction of structures. 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: 050126, 687 pages and maps, March 11, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Channels KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Plant Control KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Sediment Control KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - California KW - San Luis Obispo Creek 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/36432264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERWAY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+AFFECTING+PROPERTIES+IN+THE+CITY+OF+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+AND+THE+COUNTY+OF+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+INCLUDING+THE+COMMUNITY+OF+AVILA+BEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATERWAY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+AFFECTING+PROPERTIES+IN+THE+CITY+OF+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+AND+THE+COUNTY+OF+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+INCLUDING+THE+COMMUNITY+OF+AVILA+BEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Ventura, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATERWAY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK WATERSHED, AFFECTING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY OF AVILA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WATERWAY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK WATERSHED, AFFECTING PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, INCLUDING THE COMMUNITY OF AVILA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36364344; 050679D-050126_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a waterway management program for the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed in the city of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo County, including the community of Avila Beach, is proposed. The program would consist of a combination of policies, programs, and plans to address, in a regional or watershed-wide manner, flooding and flood control along San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries. The program would be designed to allow the City/Zone 9 to obtain either an Army Corps of Engineers regional general permit or an individual permit for Category 1 and 2 activities described in the play; Category 3 projects (capital improvements) would require a second-tier environmental review. This programmatic draft EIS addresses the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and alternatives to the capital improvement program. Program elements and mitigation measures fall into the following categories: stream maintenance and management, bank stabilization and repair, channel design, constructed natural channel designs, bypass channel designs, modified channel designs, development drainage design standards, floodplain management policies, revegetation activities, exotic species control, riparian habitat improvement, aquatic improvement, and capital improvement projects. The EIS considers five capital improvement projects. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Projects conducted under the management plan would reduce flooding, sedimentation, and bank and channel bed erosion and improve water quality and otherwise contribute to ecosystem restoration within the watershed. Development in the area would proceed as a planned, measured pace and to the extent amenable to watershed health and local economic needs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Spawning gravels would be revolved during stream improvements, and bank stabilization repair activities and various channel design and improvement measures would disturb aquatic habitat. Stockpiles of removed sediment, channel design alterations, the presence of bypass channels, and retention and other structures would mar visual aesthetics in the affected corridors. Privvate property, including structures, would be displaced and business practices would be impeded by channel work and construction of structures. 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: 050126, 687 pages and maps, March 11, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Channels KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Plant Control KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Sediment Control KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - California KW - San Luis Obispo Creek 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/36364344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATERWAY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+AFFECTING+PROPERTIES+IN+THE+CITY+OF+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+AND+THE+COUNTY+OF+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+INCLUDING+THE+COMMUNITY+OF+AVILA+BEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATERWAY+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+FOR+THE+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+CREEK+WATERSHED%2C+AFFECTING+PROPERTIES+IN+THE+CITY+OF+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO+AND+THE+COUNTY+OF+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+INCLUDING+THE+COMMUNITY+OF+AVILA+BEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Ventura, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILL CREEK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MILL CREEK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 36369959; 050675F-050102_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control plan in Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio is proposed. Mill Creek, a tributary of the Ohio River, is susceptible to damaging floods under storm conditions. Due the highly developed nature of the areas surrounding the creek, flood damages have been extensive. Past actions have included improvements along Mill Creek and the East Fork to provide protection to all structures affected by the 100-year flood event. Past actions have included the modification and paving of some sections of Mill Creek. However, these actions were discontinued in 1992, and the project was recommended for reevaluation and further analysis in 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The locally preferred alternative (Deep Tunnel Plan) would involve construction of a deep tunnel to handle a portion of the flood flows along Mill Creek. The design and alignment would represent a refinement of a plan originally conceived by the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. The tunnel would begin at the confluence of Mill Creek and East Fork Mill Creek near the Butler County line and continues downstream for over 15.8 miles to the Mill Creek Barrier Dam near the Ohio River roughly following the surface route of Mill Creek. The inner 31-foot tunnel diameter is designed strictly to handle that portion of the 100-year flood event that causes damage along Mill creek. Contaminated water would be pumped out of the tunnel, at a rate of 310 cubic feet per second, over a two-day period and processed through the municipal sewage discharge treatment plant located near the downstream end of the tunnel. Other improvements, such as floodwalls and levees would provide further protection for up to the 100-year flood event. The federally supported alternative (Channel Modification Plan) would utilize a combination of traditional engineering, natural channel design techniques, and proven soil bioengineering measures, such as the use of willows and other vegetative bank stabilization, for channel improvements to the unmodified portions of Mill Creek and some of its tributaries in order to provide protection to all structures within the 100-year floodplain, while minimizing disturbance to the existing terrestrial and aquatic habitat of Mill Creek and into tributaries. A few short floodwall sections would be provided to protect permanent structures, such as interstate highways and electrical transmission towers. Cross-vanes, similar to the Newberry riffles, would be added to improve flood protection. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing flood protection to the developed areas surrounding Mill Creek, the project would convey and or/store a portion of the water that contribute the degradation of water quality in Mill Creek. The design of the inner tunnel diameter would have the capacity to store contaminated water for a two-year storm event. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Although some construction actions could require the removal of vegetation in and along the creek channel, this would result in only temporary impacts to resources that are recoverable. Some wading migratory birds could be prevented from utilization of these areas while they were under construction; however, adequate and comparable habitat exists nearby along other stretches of the creek and in nearby parks and open spaces. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). JF - EPA number: 050102, 323 pages and maps, March 8, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Biocontrol KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Highways KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Treatment KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Ohio KW - Ohio River KW - Mill Creek KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MILL+CREEK+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=MILL+CREEK+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HAMILTON+COUNTY%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 8, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SNAKE RIVER NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE, LOWER SNAKE AND CLEARWATER RIVERS, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. AN - 36435931; 11432 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 McNary 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 runoff 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 draft 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: 050094, 391 pages, March 4, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development 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/36435931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SNAKE+RIVER+NAVIGATION+MAINTENANCE%2C+LOWER+SNAKE+AND+CLEARWATER+RIVERS%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+IDAHO.&rft.title=LOWER+SNAKE+RIVER+NAVIGATION+MAINTENANCE%2C+LOWER+SNAKE+AND+CLEARWATER+RIVERS%2C+WASHINGTON+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 - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SNAKE RIVER NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE, LOWER SNAKE AND CLEARWATER RIVERS, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LOWER SNAKE RIVER NAVIGATION MAINTENANCE, LOWER SNAKE AND CLEARWATER RIVERS, WASHINGTON AND IDAHO. AN - 36371724; 050384D-050094_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 McNary 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 runoff 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 draft 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: 050094, 391 pages, March 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development 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/36371724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SNAKE+RIVER+NAVIGATION+MAINTENANCE%2C+LOWER+SNAKE+AND+CLEARWATER+RIVERS%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+IDAHO.&rft.title=LOWER+SNAKE+RIVER+NAVIGATION+MAINTENANCE%2C+LOWER+SNAKE+AND+CLEARWATER+RIVERS%2C+WASHINGTON+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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS BANOS BYPASS, STATE ROUTE 152 IN MERCED COUNTY BEGINNING NEAR VOLTA ROAD WEST OF LOS BANOS, BYPASSING LOS BANOS, AND ENDING NEAR THE SATA FE GRADE ROAD, SANTA CLARA AND SANTA CRUZ, COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36440710; 11427 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane bypass to carry State Route (SR) 152 traffic around Los Banos in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, California is proposed. Existing SH 152 through Los Banos constitutes the only remaining undivided segment of the route between the Merced/Santa Clara county line on the west and SR 99 on the east. Congestion on SR 152 in Los Banos continues to increase as the city grows and interregional traffic increases, and 18 intersections have accident rates at least twice the state average. Three build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two alignments would pass the city to the south, while the remaining alignment would bypass the city to the north. All build alternatives would begin at approximately Mile Post (MP) 16 west of Volta Road and end at MP 24.8 east of the Santa Fe Grade Road. Interchanges for each alternative would be located at MP 17 near Bruenig/RamosRoad, SR 165, and Sante Fe Grade Road. Alternative 1M would proceed southeast from a western interchange, cross Pioneer and Ortigalita roads, curve east to run parallel to and 1,723 feet north of Copa de Ora Avenue, cross Ward Road, and curve northeast to end at existing SR 152 just become Mp 23.9. Alternative 2M would be similar to Alternative 1M on both the west and east ends, with interchanges at the same locations; however, Alternative 2M would run parallel to and north of Copa de Ora Avenue at a distance of approximately 3,697 feet. Alternative 3M would proceed northeast from a western interchange and cross Badger Flat Road, range 2,055 to 2,266 feet south of Henry Mille Road, turn southeast to run between the Saint Luis and Santa Fe canals, and terminate at an interchange near Santa Fe Grade Road. Estimated cost of alternatives 1M 2M, and 3M are $243 million, $234 million, and $245 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed bypass would ease the flow of interregional traffic around Los Banos and improve local traffic circulation within the city. The facility would improve the route continuity of SR 152 by replacing the last two-lane segment in the area and enhance safety on the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 17 or 37 {table on p. is conflicts with text} residences and one to four businesses. In addition the project would displace of 537 to 691 acres of farmland, up to 2.9 acres of wetlands, 0.2 to 3.1 acres of garter snake habitat and 400 to 525 acres of habitat for Joaquin kit fox, Sainson's hawk, greater sandhill crane, and burrowing owl. Alternative 1M and 2M would affect a portion of the Gadwall Unit of the Northern Grasslands Wildlife Area, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat, change in and loss of direct access to SR 152, rerouting of irrigation water and drainage channels, increased noise levels and storm water runoff, and degradation of visual aesthetics. Alternatives 3M would cross a railway. Alternatives 1M and 2M would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at two sensitive receptor sites, and 14, 11 and 4 sensitive receptors would experience noise increases of at least 12 decibels for Alternatives 1M, 2M, and 3M, respectively. One of two hazardous waste sites could be encountered by construction workers. 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: 050089, 314 pages and maps, march 3, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NODES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36440710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+BANOS+BYPASS%2C+STATE+ROUTE+152+IN+MERCED+COUNTY+BEGINNING+NEAR+VOLTA+ROAD+WEST+OF+LOS+BANOS%2C+BYPASSING+LOS+BANOS%2C+AND+ENDING+NEAR+THE+SATA+FE+GRADE+ROAD%2C+SANTA+CLARA+AND+SANTA+CRUZ%2C+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+BANOS+BYPASS%2C+STATE+ROUTE+152+IN+MERCED+COUNTY+BEGINNING+NEAR+VOLTA+ROAD+WEST+OF+LOS+BANOS%2C+BYPASSING+LOS+BANOS%2C+AND+ENDING+NEAR+THE+SATA+FE+GRADE+ROAD%2C+SANTA+CLARA+AND+SANTA+CRUZ%2C+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&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: march 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOS BANOS BYPASS, STATE ROUTE 152 IN MERCED COUNTY BEGINNING NEAR VOLTA ROAD WEST OF LOS BANOS, BYPASSING LOS BANOS, AND ENDING NEAR THE SATA FE GRADE ROAD, SANTA CLARA AND SANTA CRUZ, COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LOS BANOS BYPASS, STATE ROUTE 152 IN MERCED COUNTY BEGINNING NEAR VOLTA ROAD WEST OF LOS BANOS, BYPASSING LOS BANOS, AND ENDING NEAR THE SATA FE GRADE ROAD, SANTA CLARA AND SANTA CRUZ, COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36368147; 050424D-050089_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane bypass to carry State Route (SR) 152 traffic around Los Banos in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, California is proposed. Existing SH 152 through Los Banos constitutes the only remaining undivided segment of the route between the Merced/Santa Clara county line on the west and SR 99 on the east. Congestion on SR 152 in Los Banos continues to increase as the city grows and interregional traffic increases, and 18 intersections have accident rates at least twice the state average. Three build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Two alignments would pass the city to the south, while the remaining alignment would bypass the city to the north. All build alternatives would begin at approximately Mile Post (MP) 16 west of Volta Road and end at MP 24.8 east of the Santa Fe Grade Road. Interchanges for each alternative would be located at MP 17 near Bruenig/RamosRoad, SR 165, and Sante Fe Grade Road. Alternative 1M would proceed southeast from a western interchange, cross Pioneer and Ortigalita roads, curve east to run parallel to and 1,723 feet north of Copa de Ora Avenue, cross Ward Road, and curve northeast to end at existing SR 152 just become Mp 23.9. Alternative 2M would be similar to Alternative 1M on both the west and east ends, with interchanges at the same locations; however, Alternative 2M would run parallel to and north of Copa de Ora Avenue at a distance of approximately 3,697 feet. Alternative 3M would proceed northeast from a western interchange and cross Badger Flat Road, range 2,055 to 2,266 feet south of Henry Mille Road, turn southeast to run between the Saint Luis and Santa Fe canals, and terminate at an interchange near Santa Fe Grade Road. Estimated cost of alternatives 1M 2M, and 3M are $243 million, $234 million, and $245 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed bypass would ease the flow of interregional traffic around Los Banos and improve local traffic circulation within the city. The facility would improve the route continuity of SR 152 by replacing the last two-lane segment in the area and enhance safety on the facility. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 17 or 37 {table on p. is conflicts with text} residences and one to four businesses. In addition the project would displace of 537 to 691 acres of farmland, up to 2.9 acres of wetlands, 0.2 to 3.1 acres of garter snake habitat and 400 to 525 acres of habitat for Joaquin kit fox, Sainson's hawk, greater sandhill crane, and burrowing owl. Alternative 1M and 2M would affect a portion of the Gadwall Unit of the Northern Grasslands Wildlife Area, resulting in loss of wildlife habitat, change in and loss of direct access to SR 152, rerouting of irrigation water and drainage channels, increased noise levels and storm water runoff, and degradation of visual aesthetics. Alternatives 3M would cross a railway. Alternatives 1M and 2M would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at two sensitive receptor sites, and 14, 11 and 4 sensitive receptors would experience noise increases of at least 12 decibels for Alternatives 1M, 2M, and 3M, respectively. One of two hazardous waste sites could be encountered by construction workers. 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: 050089, 314 pages and maps, march 3, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-CA-EIS-05-02-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Irrigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NODES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOS+BANOS+BYPASS%2C+STATE+ROUTE+152+IN+MERCED+COUNTY+BEGINNING+NEAR+VOLTA+ROAD+WEST+OF+LOS+BANOS%2C+BYPASSING+LOS+BANOS%2C+AND+ENDING+NEAR+THE+SATA+FE+GRADE+ROAD%2C+SANTA+CLARA+AND+SANTA+CRUZ%2C+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=LOS+BANOS+BYPASS%2C+STATE+ROUTE+152+IN+MERCED+COUNTY+BEGINNING+NEAR+VOLTA+ROAD+WEST+OF+LOS+BANOS%2C+BYPASSING+LOS+BANOS%2C+AND+ENDING+NEAR+THE+SATA+FE+GRADE+ROAD%2C+SANTA+CLARA+AND+SANTA+CRUZ%2C+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&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: march 3, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY HILL MINE EXPANSION, BATTLE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1997). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RUBY HILL MINE EXPANSION, BATTLE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1997). AN - 36373066; 050318D-050087_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The operation of an open-pit gold mine by the Homestake Mining Company within the historic Eureka Mining District in central Nevada, is proposed. The project area is located 0.7 miles northwest of Eureka, Nevada, in an area known for the production of lead, silver, and gold during the late 1800's. Issues of concern include air quality, geology and minerals, paleontology, water quality and quantity, soils, vegetation resources, woodland products, wildlife and fisheries resources special status species, land use authorization and access, recreation and wilderness, visual resources, cultural heritage, social and economic values, noise and blasting vibrations, and hazardous materials and wastes. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of January 1997. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action plus the Partial Backfilling Alternative. This draft supplemental EIS addresses a newly proposed action and the No Action Alternative. The proposed action would include mine development and surface disturbance on a total of 744 acres, including 190 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 54 acres of private land owned by Homestake. During the expected nine-year life of the project, which would include seven years of mining and two years of reclamation activities, a total of 60 million tons of waste rock, 130 million tons of alluvial overburden, and 18 million tons of ore would be removed from the mine. Most of the waste rock and all of the ore would require drilling and blasting. Several blasts would occur each day. Mine waste would be hauled from the open pit to one of two proposed waste rock dumps and dumped in 50-foot lifts. The Partial Backfilling Alternative, outlined in the final EIS, would significantly reduce the amount of waste rock placed in the dumps and increase the amount of re-vegetated surface area. Other project facilities would include a crushing, grinding, and agglomeration facility; heap leaching facilities; and an office building and parking lot, a warehouses and shop, growth media stockpiles, a soil borrow source, and power line and water pipeline corridors. These project components would interconnected by haul roads, service roads, and the main access road connecting the facility with US 50. Runoff would be directed around the open pit and the general mine site by diversion ditches constructed up gradient of the general mine site. Also under consideration in the final EIS were two rock dump site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the employment of an average of 225 workers during the construction period and 121 permanent workers through the life of the operation. The total annual payroll would be $5.2 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Geochemical testing indicates that arsenic and aluminum could leach from the alluvium and oxidized limestone; extremely low levels of arsenic could reach groundwater. Of the 744 acres disturbed by mining operations, 451 acres would be tree-dominated land and the remainder would be shrub-dominated land. Approximately 34 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage would be lost to livestock grazing permittees during the project and three AUMs would be permanently displaced. Mine operations would result in the loss of habitat for mule deer and breeding birds and the potential loss of habitat for threatened and endangered species. The waste rock dump sites would create a visual contrast with the surrounding countryside. Mining would displace 190 acres of dispersed recreation land, 25 acres of which would be lost permanently. Noise levels would increase slightly for Eureka residents. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0318D, Volume 20, Number 4 and 96-0543F, Volume 20, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 050087, 373 pages and maps, March 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/BM/PL-05/002+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation act of 1977, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY HILL MINE EXPANSION, BATTLE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1997). AN - 16358206; 11425 AB - PURPOSE: The operation of an open-pit gold mine by the Homestake Mining Company within the historic Eureka Mining District in central Nevada, is proposed. The project area is located 0.7 miles northwest of Eureka, Nevada, in an area known for the production of lead, silver, and gold during the late 1800's. Issues of concern include air quality, geology and minerals, paleontology, water quality and quantity, soils, vegetation resources, woodland products, wildlife and fisheries resources special status species, land use authorization and access, recreation and wilderness, visual resources, cultural heritage, social and economic values, noise and blasting vibrations, and hazardous materials and wastes. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of January 1997. The preferred alternative is a combination of the proposed action plus the Partial Backfilling Alternative. This draft supplemental EIS addresses a newly proposed action and the No Action Alternative. The proposed action would include mine development and surface disturbance on a total of 744 acres, including 190 acres of public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management and 54 acres of private land owned by Homestake. During the expected nine-year life of the project, which would include seven years of mining and two years of reclamation activities, a total of 60 million tons of waste rock, 130 million tons of alluvial overburden, and 18 million tons of ore would be removed from the mine. Most of the waste rock and all of the ore would require drilling and blasting. Several blasts would occur each day. Mine waste would be hauled from the open pit to one of two proposed waste rock dumps and dumped in 50-foot lifts. The Partial Backfilling Alternative, outlined in the final EIS, would significantly reduce the amount of waste rock placed in the dumps and increase the amount of re-vegetated surface area. Other project facilities would include a crushing, grinding, and agglomeration facility; heap leaching facilities; and an office building and parking lot, a warehouses and shop, growth media stockpiles, a soil borrow source, and power line and water pipeline corridors. These project components would interconnected by haul roads, service roads, and the main access road connecting the facility with US 50. Runoff would be directed around the open pit and the general mine site by diversion ditches constructed up gradient of the general mine site. Also under consideration in the final EIS were two rock dump site alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the employment of an average of 225 workers during the construction period and 121 permanent workers through the life of the operation. The total annual payroll would be $5.2 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Geochemical testing indicates that arsenic and aluminum could leach from the alluvium and oxidized limestone; extremely low levels of arsenic could reach groundwater. Of the 744 acres disturbed by mining operations, 451 acres would be tree-dominated land and the remainder would be shrub-dominated land. Approximately 34 animal unit months (AUMs) of forage would be lost to livestock grazing permittees during the project and three AUMs would be permanently displaced. Mine operations would result in the loss of habitat for mule deer and breeding birds and the potential loss of habitat for threatened and endangered species. The waste rock dump sites would create a visual contrast with the surrounding countryside. Mining would displace 190 acres of dispersed recreation land, 25 acres of which would be lost permanently. Noise levels would increase slightly for Eureka residents. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0318D, Volume 20, Number 4 and 96-0543F, Volume 20, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 050087, 373 pages and maps, March 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/BM/PL-05/002+1793 KW - Acids KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Roads KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation act of 1977, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358206?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.title=RUBY+HILL+MINE+EXPANSION%2C+BATTLE+MOUNTAIN+DISTRICT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Plant processes important for the transformation and degradation of explosives contaminants. AN - 67919381; 15948604 AB - Environmental contamination by explosives is a worldwide problem. Of the 20 energetic compounds, 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), and octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX) are the most powerful and commonly used. Nitroamines are toxic and considered as possible carcinogens. The toxicity and persistence of nitroamines requires that their fate in the environment be understood and that contaminated soil and groundwater be remediated. This study, written as a minireview, provides further insights for plant processes important for the transformation and degradation of explosives. Plants metabolize TNT and the distribution of the transformation products, conjugates, and bound residues appears to be consistent with the green liver model concept. Metabolism of TNT in plants occurs by reduction as well as by oxidation. Reduction probably plays an important role in the tolerance of plants towards TNT, and, therefore a high nitroreductase capacity may serve as a biochemical criterion for the selection of plant species to remediate TNT. Because the activities and the inducibilities of the oxidative enzymes are far lower than of nitroreductase, reducing processes may predominate. However, oxidation may initiate the route to conjugation and sequestration leading ultimately to detoxification of TNT, and, therefore, particularly the oxidative pathway deserves more study. It is possible that plants metabolize RDX also according to the green liver concept. In the case of plant metabolism of HMX, a conclusion regarding compliance with the green liver concept was not reached due to the limited number of available data. JF - Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung. C, Journal of biosciences AU - Best, Elly P H AU - Kvesitadze, G K AU - Khatisahvili, G AU - Sadunishvili, T AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. beste@wes.army.mil PY - 2005 SP - 340 EP - 348 VL - 60 IS - 3-4 SN - 0939-5075, 0939-5075 KW - Soil Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - Index Medicus KW - Species Specificity KW - Poaceae -- metabolism KW - Plants -- metabolism KW - Soil Pollutants -- pharmacokinetics KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- pharmacokinetics KW - Biodegradation, Environmental UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/67919381?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=Zeitschrift+fur+Naturforschung.+C%2C+Journal+of+biosciences&rft.atitle=Plant+processes+important+for+the+transformation+and+degradation+of+explosives+contaminants.&rft.au=Best%2C+Elly+P+H%3BKvesitadze%2C+G+K%3BKhatisahvili%2C+G%3BSadunishvili%2C+T&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=Elly+P&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=340&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Zeitschrift+fur+Naturforschung.+C%2C+Journal+of+biosciences&rft.issn=09395075&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2005-06-30 N1 - Date created - 2005-06-13 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of environmental fate and transport process descriptors of explosives in saline and freshwater systems. AN - 67503957; 15757688 AB - Environmental process descriptors are necessary to evaluate the fate and transport of munitions constituents that have been introduced into the environment. An extensive database exists for freshwater environments; however, explosives fate and transport parameters such as dissolution rates, transformation rates, and adsorption of explosives have not been evaluated under both freshwater and saline conditions to determine the applicability of the freshwater data to saline environments. The objective of this study was to determine if freshwater fate and transport processes were similar to those determined under saline water conditions. We evaluated TNT, RDX, and HMX dissolution rates, transformation rates, and adsorption under freshwater and saline conditions in batch tests. Results showed a generally close agreement. Therefore, the existing freshwater database for explosives fate and transport process descriptors can be used in marine environments. JF - Marine pollution bulletin AU - Brannon, James M AU - Price, Cynthia B AU - Yost, Sally L AU - Hayes, Charlotte AU - Porter, Beth AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA. Y1 - 2005/03// PY - 2005 DA - March 2005 SP - 247 EP - 251 VL - 50 IS - 3 SN - 0025-326X, 0025-326X KW - Hazardous Substances KW - 0 KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - Index Medicus KW - Seawater -- chemistry KW - Fresh Water -- chemistry KW - Water Movements KW - Databases, Factual KW - Adsorption KW - Explosions KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- analysis KW - Hazardous Substances -- analysis KW - Models, Theoretical UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/67503957?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=Marine+pollution+bulletin&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+environmental+fate+and+transport+process+descriptors+of+explosives+in+saline+and+freshwater+systems.&rft.au=Brannon%2C+James+M%3BPrice%2C+Cynthia+B%3BYost%2C+Sally+L%3BHayes%2C+Charlotte%3BPorter%2C+Beth&rft.aulast=Brannon&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=247&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+pollution+bulletin&rft.issn=0025326X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2005-07-11 N1 - Date created - 2005-03-10 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Pilot-scale electrokinetic cleanup of lead-contaminated soils AN - 51682569; 2005-058549 AB - The results of two pilot-scale experiments on enhanced electrokinetic extraction of lead from contaminated soil samples collected from a military Small Arms Training Facility are presented. The tests were conducted using two boxes with electrode spacing of 87 cm (Box 1) and 174 cm (Box 2). The soil was formed of a sandy layer on top of a clayey sand layer. The soil contained bullet fragments and the mean initial lead concentration in the minus 2.00 mm soil fraction was 3041 mg/kg and 1187 mg/kg in the sand and clayey sand layers, respectively. A current density of 1.3 A/m (super 2) was used in both tests and was doubled after 112 days of processing. organic acid was used to maintain the catholyte pH between 4 and 5. Box 1 and Box 2 were processed for 9 months and 11 months, respectively. The results showed that organic acid amendment at the cathode reduced the voltage and energy requirement by 70% and enhanced lead extraction. Lead transport showed a delay of about 14 days in the initial transport front development. For the conditions described in this study, the reactive rate of lead transport by ion migration and electroosmosis was 0.4 cm/day under 1 V/cm, which is less than 10% of the theoretical nonreactive value. There was a minimum limit for lead extraction from the soil by electrokinetics. Final lead concentrations in the treated sections were around 500 mg/kg in the sand and 400 mg/kg in the clayey sand. The results represent a reduced lead concentration by 85% in the sand and by 70% in the clayey sand. Complete breakthrough of lead did not occur due to accumulation near the cathode, even though catholyte pH was 4 to 5. A transverse upward transport and accumulation of lead at the soil surface was observed in both tests. Treatment duration of 9 months was adequate for Box 1, while 11 months of processing was not enough for Box 2 to bring the total lead concentration to below 500 mg/kg across the soil. Electrical energy cost for the process was between JF - Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering AU - Alshawabkeh, Akram N AU - Bricka, R Mark AU - Gent, David B Y1 - 2005/03// PY - 2005 DA - March 2005 SP - 283 EP - 291 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY VL - 131 IS - 3 SN - 1090-0241, 1090-0241 KW - United States KW - soils KW - concentration KW - experimental studies KW - chemical analysis KW - pollutants KW - Warren County Mississippi KW - Mississippi KW - soil treatment KW - pollution KW - lead KW - ions KW - electrokinetics KW - remediation KW - laboratory studies KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - transport KW - metals KW - testing KW - pH KW - instruments KW - U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51682569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Geotechnical+and+Geoenvironmental+Engineering&rft.atitle=Pilot-scale+electrokinetic+cleanup+of+lead-contaminated+soils&rft.au=Alshawabkeh%2C+Akram+N%3BBricka%2C+R+Mark%3BGent%2C+David+B&rft.aulast=Alshawabkeh&rft.aufirst=Akram&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=131&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=283&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Geotechnical+and+Geoenvironmental+Engineering&rft.issn=10900241&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%291090-0241%282005%29131%3A3%28283%29 L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/gto LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 31 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - JGENDZ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - chemical analysis; concentration; electrokinetics; experimental studies; instruments; ions; laboratory studies; lead; metals; Mississippi; pH; pollutants; pollution; remediation; soil treatment; soils; testing; transport; U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center; United States; Vicksburg Mississippi; Warren County Mississippi DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:3(283) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - EarthWatch Institute volunteers participate in field research at Bering Glacier, Alaska AN - 51591549; 2006-042530 AB - Eleven EarthWatch institute volunteers from five countries participated in field studies at Bering Glacier, Alaska, during June/July, 2004, Although from professions other than the field sciences, volunteers enthusiastically helped advance project goals. Most volunteers had previous experience in remote regions and were capable of dealing with the rigors of the glacial environment. Under the direction of experienced staff, EarthWatch volunteers were trained for mapping projects and data collection. GPS mapping along the eastern piedmont ice front yielded an annual retreat rate between 50-75 m for land-based ice, 100-200 m in shallow water and up to 800 m of calving retreat. Renewed development of lacuna depressions ( approximately 90 m diameter and approximately 60 m depth), in the same location as before the 1993-95 surge, is now occurring within a downwasting zone of passive, marginal ice. This suggests englacial conditions uniquely common to this specific segment of the piedmont lobe. Mapping confirmed the field association of subglacial tunnel channels with ice front outburst sites. Volunteers measured ice surface ablation rates that varied between 7.1 cm/day to 9.5 cm/day within one kilometer of ice front. They also recorded till fabric linking flute formation to overriding ice. Multiple foreland stratigraphic sections were described and correlated utilizing data recorded by volunteers and the fossil wood samples they collected. Unlike undergraduate research associates, volunteers did not participate in the design of field projects nor do they assist with post-field data analysis. Nonetheless, the involvement of EarthWatch Institute volunteers at Bering Glacier yielded numerous mutually valuable outcomes. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Fleisher, P Jay AU - Russell, Andrew J AU - Bailey, Palmer K AU - Natel, Eric M AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/03// PY - 2005 DA - March 2005 SP - 11 EP - 12 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 37 IS - 1 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - volunteerism KW - subglacial environment KW - monitoring KW - ablation KW - ice-marginal features KW - glaciers KW - mapping KW - glacier surges KW - Southern Alaska KW - glacial environment KW - Bering Glacier KW - EarthWatch KW - Alaska KW - glacial geology KW - field studies KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51591549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=EarthWatch+Institute+volunteers+participate+in+field+research+at+Bering+Glacier%2C+Alaska&rft.au=Fleisher%2C+P+Jay%3BRussell%2C+Andrew+J%3BBailey%2C+Palmer+K%3BNatel%2C+Eric+M%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Fleisher&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Northeastern Section, 40th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - ablation; Alaska; Bering Glacier; EarthWatch; field studies; glacial environment; glacial geology; glacier surges; glaciers; ice-marginal features; mapping; monitoring; Southern Alaska; subglacial environment; United States; volunteerism ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36437130; 11422 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrub land, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activities. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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: 050084, 831 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36437130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36386135; 050482F-050322_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36386135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36386044; 050482F-050322_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36386044?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36380264; 050482F-050322_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36380264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36380164; 050482F-050322_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36380164?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36379098; 050482F-050322_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36379098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378933; 050482F-050322_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36378933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378575; 050482F-050322_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36378575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378555; 050482F-050322_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36378555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378074; 050482F-050322_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36378074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378072; 050482F-050322_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36378072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36374167; 050482F-050322_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36374167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36373886; 050482F-050322_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36373886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36373792; 050482F-050322_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36373792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 27 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36373388; 050482F-050322_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36373388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36373288; 050482F-050322_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36373288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372059; 050382D-050084_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrub land, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activities. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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: 050084, 831 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36372059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371113; 050482F-050322_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36371113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370419; 050482F-050322_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36370419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370361; 050482F-050322_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36370361?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36369876; 050482F-050322_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36369876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36367007; 050482F-050322_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36367007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36366484; 050482F-050322_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36366484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36366400; 050482F-050322_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36366400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 29 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36366213; 050482F-050322_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36366213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36365776; 050482F-050322_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36365776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36364659; 050482F-050322_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36364659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36364237; 050482F-050322_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36364237?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36364113; 050482F-050322_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36364113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36364013; 050482F-050322_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36364013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 29] T2 - CAPACITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT, WASHINGTON. AN - 36361597; 050482F-050322_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of facilities to replace the contractual delivery capacity of an existing 268-mile, 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal in Washington is proposed by the Northwest Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Gas Pipeline company. The existing system would be abandoned. The new system would require installation of 79.5 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in four separate loops in Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston counties; modification of five existing compressor stations to provide 10,760 horsepower of new compression to the system; installation of three pig launchers; installation of one pig receiver from its previous location on the existing Evergreen Expansion Project Mount Vernon Loop to the end of the proposed Mount Vernon Loop; installation of five 30-inch and 15 36-inch mainline valves (MLVs) along the proposed loops; installation of six 30-inch MLVs along the existing Evergreen Expansion Project loops; abandonment of the existing 26-inch-diameter pipeline between Sumas and Washougal, with the exception of a short segment within and between the existing Jackson Prairie Meter Station and the Chehalis Compressor Station; and use of 13 pipe storage and contractor yards on a temporary basis to support construction activities. In addition to the proposed, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Postponed Action Alternative as well as the use of other existing infrastructure and pipeline corridor alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would replace existing system capacity, allowing the applicant to continue to deliver natural gas to its northwest intermediate market. Substantial employment would be created during the three- to eight-month construction period. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline would be situated in an area affected by light to moderate seismic activity, potentially affecting the structural integrity of the system, though the loops would generally avoid geologically active fault lines. The pipeline would traverse 23.2 miles of farmland. Approximately 1.5 acres to be added to the Chehalis Compressor Station would be underlain by hydric soils affected by seasonal wetness. A total of 9 public water supply wells and 800 private wells would be located within the vicinity of the rights-of-way. Hydrostatic testing of the loops would require 21.4 million gallons of water. The pipeline would traverse 146 water bodies, including perennial and intermittent streams and jurisdictional wetlands and upland ditches. Approximately 264 acres of wetlands, 878.3 acres of upland vegetation (including 307.4 acres of shrubland, 209.5 acres of agricultural land, 71.2 acres of mixed forest, 36.7 acres of evergreen forest. 35.4 acres of grassland/herbaceous cover, and 207.2 acres of landscape), would be affected. Six major water bodies would be crosses; all of these flows are considered sensitive because they provide coldwater habitat and essential fish habitat and also support special status fish species. Habitat for numerous federal protected species would be traversed by the pipeline. The pipeline would lie within 50 feet of 22 residences and 22 other structures. Mercury and petroleum hydrocarbon contamination could be encountered at 2 aboveground sites during construction. Visual and other recreational values would be degraded within the vicinity of the pipeline, particularly in areas affected by aboveground facilities. Nine cultural resource sites eligible or inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be disturbed by construction and/or maintenance activates. Cultural resources of importance to local tribes could also be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0382D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050322, 931 pages, March 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0178F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington 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/36361597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CAPACITY+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Update to the Propagation and Establishment of Aquatic Plants Handbook AN - 19990299; 7173673 AB - Man-made reservoirs initially lack aquatic plants, and their operation for flood protection or water supply may result in extreme water level fluctuations that hinder natural establishment. In many cases natural establishment could take decades or even longer. In the interim these reservoirs provide relatively poor aquatic habitat and water quality. Unvegetated aquatic ecosystems are also at risk of invasion by problematic, nonindigenous species. These unvegetated man-made systems would benefit from establishment of native aquatic plants. Even natural ecosystems such as lakes and ponds may have lost their aquatic flora due to chronic disturbance or long-term vegetation management. These systems also often suffer impaired water quality, are at risk of re-invasion by exotic species, and would benefit from native plant restoration. This report describes updated techniques for production of plant propagules and their use for establishment of native plant communities in unvegetated freshwater ecosystems. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Smart, R M AU - Dick, GO AU - Snow, J R Y1 - 2005/03// PY - 2005 DA - March 2005 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - water quality KW - Water reservoirs KW - Ecosystems KW - Water resources KW - Water quality KW - Water supplies KW - Ponds KW - Lakes KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Exotic Species KW - Floods KW - Plant populations KW - Reservoirs KW - disturbance KW - Laboratory testing KW - flora KW - Aquatic plants KW - Vegetation KW - Habitat KW - Water supply KW - Risk KW - water levels KW - Aquatic Habitats KW - plant communities KW - Plants KW - Waterways KW - aquatic ecosystems KW - Introduced species KW - Benefits KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution KW - Q1 08222:Geographical distribution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19990299?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Smart%2C+R+M%3BDick%2C+GO%3BSnow%2C+J+R&rft.aulast=Smart&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Update+to+the+Propagation+and+Establishment+of+Aquatic+Plants+Handbook&rft.title=Update+to+the+Propagation+and+Establishment+of+Aquatic+Plants+Handbook&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 - Dredging Effects on Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in a New England Small Boat Harbor AN - 19730268; 6460500 AB - While speculation on effects of dredging on seagrass beds is plentiful, actual empirical data documenting these effects are not. In this study, acoustic-based seagrass mapping techniques were used to generate detailed maps of seagrass distribution before and after dredging operations. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) within Scituate Harbor, MA, was monitored during mid-summer in 2001, 2003, and 2004; navigation maintenance dredging of the harbor was performed during fall 2002. Similar surveys were also performed during the same timeframe at an un-dredged harbor near Wood Island, Maine. Two types of potential impacts were examined. Direct impacts involved physical removal of vegetation along with the dredged sediments. Indirect impacts in adjacent undredged areas may occur as a result of increased turbidity and/or siltation associated with dredging activities. Using hydroacoustic techniques, we were able to easily map and quantify direct impacts to eelgrass resources. Assessment of indirect impacts, however, was more complex. In the first post-dredging survey, a substantial reduction in coverage occurred in adjoining un-dredged areas, suggesting possible indirect impacts. This was followed by a modest recovery between the first and second post-dredging years. However, monitoring of other un-dredged sites within the region showed natural year-to-year variations in eelgrass coverage to be almost as large as those occurring at the dredged site. Results emphasize the need for long-term data to discern any potential effects of dredging on seagrass dynamics as opposed to a host of other factors contributing to high variability in measured parameters. JF - Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering AU - Sabol, B AU - Shafer, D J AU - Lord, E AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS, ZIP Code 39180, USA, Bruce.M.Sabol@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/03// PY - 2005 DA - Mar 2005 SP - 57 EP - 81 VL - 8 IS - 1 SN - 1061-026X, 1061-026X KW - Eel grass KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Environmental Effects KW - Acoustic data KW - Variability KW - Sea Grasses KW - Ecological distribution KW - Maps KW - Population dynamics KW - Boats KW - Islands KW - Assessments KW - USA, New England KW - Mapping KW - Seagrasses KW - Marinas KW - boats KW - Environmental impact KW - Aquatic plants KW - Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wood KW - seagrass beds KW - Navigation KW - Silting KW - Harbours KW - Sediments KW - Maintenance KW - Ecosystem disturbance KW - navigation KW - Dredging KW - USA, Maine KW - Sea grass KW - Monitoring KW - Harbors KW - Zostera marina KW - Turbidity KW - O 6060:Coastal Zone Resources and Management KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes KW - Q2 09384:Dredging UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19730268?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+Marine+Environmental+Engineering&rft.atitle=Dredging+Effects+on+Eelgrass+%28Zostera+marina%29+in+a+New+England+Small+Boat+Harbor&rft.au=Sabol%2C+B%3BShafer%2C+D+J%3BLord%2C+E&rft.aulast=Sabol&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=57&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Marine+Environmental+Engineering&rft.issn=1061026X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Acoustic data; Ecological distribution; Aquatic plants; Environmental impact; Dredging; Sea grass; Population dynamics; Maps; Harbours; Silting; Turbidity; Ecosystem disturbance; Seagrasses; boats; Wood; Vegetation; seagrass beds; Maintenance; Sediments; Islands; navigation; Mapping; Harbors; Environmental Effects; Variability; Sea Grasses; Marinas; Surveys; Navigation; Boats; Assessments; Monitoring; Zostera marina; USA, New England; USA, Maine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Airborne Lidar and Integrated Technologies for Coastal Mapping and Nautical Charting AN - 17418414; 6549386 AB - The state-of-the-art in airborne coastal mapping and charting technology is the Compact Hydrographic Airborne Rapid Total Survey (CHARTS) system. CHARTS is the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office program name for an Optech, Inc. SHOALS 3000T20-E. CHARTS comprises a 3 kHz bathymetric lidar, a 20 kHz topographic lidar, a DuncanTech DT4000 high-resolution digital camera, and a Compact Airborne Spectrographic Imager(CASI)-1500. The integrated sensor suite has the capability to collect lidar bathymetry, lidar topography, RGB imagery, and hyperspectral imagery. Beyond these products, the diffuse attenuation coefficient and seafloor reflectance at multiple wavelengths may be estimated by combining information from the bathymetric lidar waveform and the hyperspectral imagery. The Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise (JALBTCX) specified development of the CHARTS system and currently manages its operations for Department of Defense customers. CHARTS data collection rate of 21 square nautical miles per survey hour enables rapid completion of large nautical charting work for the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Coastal Mapping Program uses CHARTS to collect engineering scale data for the entire U.S. coastline. JALBTCX continues to lead development in the field of airborne lidar and integrated technologies for coastal mapping and charting. Future research efforts include mining the individual data sets collected by CHARTS for information beyond elevation, combining data sets to further identify physical and environmental characteristics of the coastal zone, and integrating additional complementary sensors with CHARTS. JF - Marine Technology Society Journal AU - Wozencraft, J AU - Millar, D AD - Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical, Center of Expertise, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mobile District, USA Y1 - 2005/03// PY - 2005 DA - Mar 2005 SP - 27 EP - 35 VL - 39 IS - 3 SN - 0025-3324, 0025-3324 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts KW - Reflectance KW - Sensors KW - Airborne equipment KW - Lidar KW - Bathymeters KW - Engineering KW - Mapping KW - Charts KW - Data Collections KW - Topography KW - Marine technology KW - Marine KW - Attenuation coefficients KW - Surveys KW - Hydrographic surveys KW - Bathymetry KW - USA KW - Coastal zone KW - Navigational aids KW - Lidar applications KW - Cameras KW - Coastal mapping KW - Navigational charts KW - Spectroscopic techniques KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - O 7060:Navigation and Communications KW - M2 551.468:Coastal Oceanography (551.468) KW - Q2 09385:Hydrographic survey and cartography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17418414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Marine+Technology+Society+Journal&rft.atitle=Airborne+Lidar+and+Integrated+Technologies+for+Coastal+Mapping+and+Nautical+Charting&rft.au=Wozencraft%2C+J%3BMillar%2C+D&rft.aulast=Wozencraft&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=27&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Technology+Society+Journal&rft.issn=00253324&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Coastal zone; Navigational aids; Airborne equipment; Cameras; Lidar; Hydrographic surveys; Mapping; Spectroscopic techniques; Navigational charts; Bathymeters; Bathymetry; Marine technology; Reflectance; Attenuation coefficients; Lidar applications; Coastal mapping; Topography; Engineering; Sensors; Surveys; Charts; Data Collections; USA; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Representative Sampling for Energetic Compounds at Military Training Ranges AN - 16190089; 6227240 AB - Field sampling experiments were conducted at various locations on training ranges at three military installations within North America. The areas investigated included an anti-tank range firing point, an anti-tank range impact area, an artillery-range firing point, and an artillery-range impact area. The purpose of this study was to develop practical sampling strategies to reliably estimate mean concentrations of residues from munitions found in surface soil at various types of live-fire training ranges. The ranges studied differ in the types of energetic residues deposited and the mode of deposition. In most cases, the major source zones for these residues are the top two or three centimeters of soil. Multi-increment sampling was used to reduce the variance between field sample replicates and to enhance sample representativeness. Based on these criteria the results indicate that a single or a few discrete samples do not provide representative data for these types of sites. However, samples built from at least 25 increments provided data that was sufficiently representative to allow for the estimation of energetic residue mass loading in surface soils and to characterize the training activity at a given location, thereby addressing two objectives that frequently are common to both environmental and forensic investigations. JF - Environmental Forensics AU - Jenkins, T F AU - Hewitt, AD AU - Walsh, ME AU - Ranney, T A AU - Ramsey, CA AU - Grant, CL AU - Bjella, K L AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, USA Y1 - 2005/03// PY - 2005 DA - Mar 2005 SP - 45 EP - 55 VL - 6 IS - 1 SN - 1527-5922, 1527-5922 KW - forensics KW - munitions KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Soil KW - North America KW - Environmental information KW - Weapons KW - Data collection KW - Residues KW - Training KW - Military KW - Sampling methods KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16190089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Forensics&rft.atitle=Representative+Sampling+for+Energetic+Compounds+at+Military+Training+Ranges&rft.au=Jenkins%2C+T+F%3BHewitt%2C+AD%3BWalsh%2C+ME%3BRanney%2C+T+A%3BRamsey%2C+CA%3BGrant%2C+CL%3BBjella%2C+K+L&rft.aulast=Jenkins&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Forensics&rft.issn=15275922&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F15275920590913912 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil; Data collection; Weapons; Environmental information; Residues; Training; Military; Sampling methods; North America DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15275920590913912 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Concepts in sediments budgets AN - 1030488339; 2012-068480 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Rosati, Julie Dean Y1 - 2005/03// PY - 2005 DA - March 2005 SP - 307 EP - 322 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - 21 IS - 2 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - sedimentation KW - Worcester County Maryland KW - concepts KW - case studies KW - New York KW - sensitivity analysis KW - mass balance KW - sediments KW - Ocean City Maryland KW - Maryland KW - Long Island KW - coastal sedimentation KW - uncertainty KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030488339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Concepts+in+sediments+budgets&rft.au=Rosati%2C+Julie+Dean&rft.aulast=Rosati&rft.aufirst=Julie&rft.date=2005-03-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=307&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2F02-475A.1 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 32 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - case studies; coastal sedimentation; concepts; Long Island; Maryland; mass balance; New York; Ocean City Maryland; sedimentation; sediments; sensitivity analysis; uncertainty; United States; Worcester County Maryland DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/02-475A.1 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INGLESIDE ENERGY CENTER LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY WEST OF INGLESIDE, NEUCES AND SAN PATRICIO COUNTTIES, TEXAS (DOCKET NOS. CP05-13-000, CP05-11-000, CP05-12-000, CP05-13-000). AN - 36436745; 11418 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. The 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 and one protected berth to unload up to 140 LNG ships each year; two double-containment LNG storage tanks with a nominal working volume of 1.0 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 contraction 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 seagrass 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)). JF - EPA number: 050080, 389 pages, February 24, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-177D 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, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-24&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+COUNTTIES%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP05-13-000%2C+CP05-11-000%2C+CP05-12-000%2C+CP05-13-000%29.&rft.title=INGLESIDE+ENERGY+CENTER+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CORPUS+CHRISTI+BAY+WEST+OF+INGLESIDE%2C+NEUCES+AND+SAN+PATRICIO+COUNTTIES%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP05-13-000%2C+CP05-11-000%2C+CP05-12-000%2C+CP05-13-000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INGLESIDE ENERGY CENTER LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY WEST OF INGLESIDE, NEUCES AND SAN PATRICIO COUNTTIES, TEXAS (DOCKET NOS. CP05-13-000, CP05-11-000, CP05-12-000, CP05-13-000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INGLESIDE ENERGY CENTER LNG TERMINAL AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY WEST OF INGLESIDE, NEUCES AND SAN PATRICIO COUNTTIES, TEXAS (DOCKET NOS. CP05-13-000, CP05-11-000, CP05-12-000, CP05-13-000). AN - 36370402; 050309D-050080_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. The 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 and one protected berth to unload up to 140 LNG ships each year; two double-containment LNG storage tanks with a nominal working volume of 1.0 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 contraction 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 seagrass 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)). JF - EPA number: 050080, 389 pages, February 24, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-177D 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, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-24&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+COUNTTIES%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP05-13-000%2C+CP05-11-000%2C+CP05-12-000%2C+CP05-13-000%29.&rft.title=INGLESIDE+ENERGY+CENTER+LNG+TERMINAL+AND+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+CORPUS+CHRISTI+BAY+WEST+OF+INGLESIDE%2C+NEUCES+AND+SAN+PATRICIO+COUNTTIES%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NOS.+CP05-13-000%2C+CP05-11-000%2C+CP05-12-000%2C+CP05-13-000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROWN LANDING LNG AND LOGAN LATERAL PROJECTS, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY; NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE; AND DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (DOCKETS NOS. CP04-411-000 AND CP04-416-000). AN - 36438274; 11413 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is proposed to allow for the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, to be known as the Crown Landing LNG Project, in Gloucester County, New Jersey and natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Logan Lateral Project, in Brookhaven Borough, Pennsylvania. The LNG terminal would be located on a 175-acre site on the shoreline of the Delaware River, It would consist of facilities capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 450,000 cubic meters of LNG, vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a base rate of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) and, using space equipment, a maximum rate of 1.4 Bcfd. The LNG facilities would be connected with three onsite pipelines, including the Logal Lateral Project pipeline between the existing Chester Junction facility in Brookhaven Borough and the proposed LNG terminal. The other two interconnects would be with existing pipelines that cross the terminal site. Neither Columbia Gas Transmission Company nor Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation, who own the other pipeline interconnects, have filed applications to construct and operate the facilities. Development of the LNG terminal would involve the dredging of shallow water river bottom and the filling of a small area of intertidal river shoreline for the installation of berthing structures in the river. The pipeline project would involve installation of 11 miles of new underground pipeline from the storage and transfer facility to an existing pipeline junction facility in Pennsylvania. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal and pipeline would increase the national capacity for importation of natural gas into the United States, in this case for transport to the eastern U.S. Use of the existing natural gas pipeline system in Pennsylvania would render the port economically efficient. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 39 acres would be permanently developed for the terminal facility and access road, and the project would require 800,000 cubic yards of dredging, disturbing 27.4 acres of riverbed and requiring upland disposal. Some of the dredged sediments would be contaminated. The Logan Lateral Project would temporarily affect another 177.3 acres, 54.1 of which would be retained as permanent rights-of-way and 1.8 acres for related aboveground facilities. One private water well could be affected by the pipeline, and pipeline construction could affect groundwater as it would traverse an aquifer. Approximately 5.5 acres of state-designated transition wetland area, 1.4 acres of shrub, and 1.7 acres of open land would be permanently affected at the terminal site, while the Logal Lateral Project would affect 22.4 acres of wetlands, of which 2.4 acres would be permanently converted to other wetland types, as well as 125.7 acres of vegetation consisting of 50.8 acres of agricultural lands, 35 acres of open lands, 23.4 acres of forest, and 16.5 acres of non-forested wetlands. Only 8.5 acres of forested land would lie within permanent rights-of-way. Ten federally protected fish species and their prey could be affected by terminal developments. Approximately 20 residential structures would lie within one mile of the entrance to the LNG terminal and 147 residences would lie within 50 feet of the pipeline route. Aboveground pipeline facilities and terminal storage tanks would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Though archaeological and/or historic sites would lie within the vicinity of the two projects, neither would negatively affect these sites. Explosions due to accident or terrorist attach would release volatile gas into the vicinity of the leak. Vessel traffic in the Delaware River and its approaches would be increased. 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.), 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: 050075, 641 pages, February 18, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0179D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Navigation KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania 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, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROWN+LANDING+LNG+AND+LOGAN+LATERAL+PROJECTS%2C+GLOUCESTER+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3B+NEW+CASTLE+COUNTY%2C+DELAWARE%3B+AND+DELAWARE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DOCKETS+NOS.+CP04-411-000+AND+CP04-416-000%29.&rft.title=CROWN+LANDING+LNG+AND+LOGAN+LATERAL+PROJECTS%2C+GLOUCESTER+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3B+NEW+CASTLE+COUNTY%2C+DELAWARE%3B+AND+DELAWARE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DOCKETS+NOS.+CP04-411-000+AND+CP04-416-000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROWN LANDING LNG AND LOGAN LATERAL PROJECTS, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY; NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE; AND DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (DOCKETS NOS. CP04-411-000 AND CP04-416-000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CROWN LANDING LNG AND LOGAN LATERAL PROJECTS, GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY; NEW CASTLE COUNTY, DELAWARE; AND DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA (DOCKETS NOS. CP04-411-000 AND CP04-416-000). AN - 36369958; 050308D-050075_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is proposed to allow for the construction of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal, to be known as the Crown Landing LNG Project, in Gloucester County, New Jersey and natural gas pipeline facilities, to be known as the Logan Lateral Project, in Brookhaven Borough, Pennsylvania. The LNG terminal would be located on a 175-acre site on the shoreline of the Delaware River, It would consist of facilities capable of unloading LNG ships, storing up to 450,000 cubic meters of LNG, vaporizing the LNG, and sending out natural gas at a base rate of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) and, using space equipment, a maximum rate of 1.4 Bcfd. The LNG facilities would be connected with three onsite pipelines, including the Logal Lateral Project pipeline between the existing Chester Junction facility in Brookhaven Borough and the proposed LNG terminal. The other two interconnects would be with existing pipelines that cross the terminal site. Neither Columbia Gas Transmission Company nor Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation, who own the other pipeline interconnects, have filed applications to construct and operate the facilities. Development of the LNG terminal would involve the dredging of shallow water river bottom and the filling of a small area of intertidal river shoreline for the installation of berthing structures in the river. The pipeline project would involve installation of 11 miles of new underground pipeline from the storage and transfer facility to an existing pipeline junction facility in Pennsylvania. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal and pipeline would increase the national capacity for importation of natural gas into the United States, in this case for transport to the eastern U.S. Use of the existing natural gas pipeline system in Pennsylvania would render the port economically efficient. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 39 acres would be permanently developed for the terminal facility and access road, and the project would require 800,000 cubic yards of dredging, disturbing 27.4 acres of riverbed and requiring upland disposal. Some of the dredged sediments would be contaminated. The Logan Lateral Project would temporarily affect another 177.3 acres, 54.1 of which would be retained as permanent rights-of-way and 1.8 acres for related aboveground facilities. One private water well could be affected by the pipeline, and pipeline construction could affect groundwater as it would traverse an aquifer. Approximately 5.5 acres of state-designated transition wetland area, 1.4 acres of shrub, and 1.7 acres of open land would be permanently affected at the terminal site, while the Logal Lateral Project would affect 22.4 acres of wetlands, of which 2.4 acres would be permanently converted to other wetland types, as well as 125.7 acres of vegetation consisting of 50.8 acres of agricultural lands, 35 acres of open lands, 23.4 acres of forest, and 16.5 acres of non-forested wetlands. Only 8.5 acres of forested land would lie within permanent rights-of-way. Ten federally protected fish species and their prey could be affected by terminal developments. Approximately 20 residential structures would lie within one mile of the entrance to the LNG terminal and 147 residences would lie within 50 feet of the pipeline route. Aboveground pipeline facilities and terminal storage tanks would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Though archaeological and/or historic sites would lie within the vicinity of the two projects, neither would negatively affect these sites. Explosions due to accident or terrorist attach would release volatile gas into the vicinity of the leak. Vessel traffic in the Delaware River and its approaches would be increased. 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.), 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: 050075, 641 pages, February 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0179D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Harbor Structures KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Navigation KW - Open Space KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania 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, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROWN+LANDING+LNG+AND+LOGAN+LATERAL+PROJECTS%2C+GLOUCESTER+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3B+NEW+CASTLE+COUNTY%2C+DELAWARE%3B+AND+DELAWARE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DOCKETS+NOS.+CP04-411-000+AND+CP04-416-000%29.&rft.title=CROWN+LANDING+LNG+AND+LOGAN+LATERAL+PROJECTS%2C+GLOUCESTER+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3B+NEW+CASTLE+COUNTY%2C+DELAWARE%3B+AND+DELAWARE+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+%28DOCKETS+NOS.+CP04-411-000+AND+CP04-416-000%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. AN - 36368600; 050422F-050070_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a partially controlled access roadway between the intersection of US 80 (Desiard Street) and existing Kansas Lane to the south and the intersection of US 165 and the Forsythe Avenue Extension to the north in the city of Monroe and Ouachita Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility, to be known as the Kansas Lane Connector, would extend 2.5 miles through the northeastern Louisiana parish. The 2.96-square-mile project study area includes residential areas, a large undeveloped area, the University of Louisiana at Monroe campus, and a portion of Bayou Desiard. The region is characterized by an increasing travel demand. Five build alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final supplemental EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 2.45 miles to 2.61 miles. The preferred alternative (Northern Alternative) would extend 2.61 miles. Estimated cost of the Northern Alternative is $16.4 million, including $2.5 million for rights-of-way acquisition. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would provide a roadway that would reduce traffic congestion along existing US 80 and US 165, thereby improving area-wide mobility and safety. The facility would offer a much more direct route between northern residential and commercial office areas, eastern residential areas, and the southern retail, commercial, and industrial areas of Monroe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8 residences and 24 other residences. Some low-income and minority residents would be affected, particularly in the Ingleside neighborhood; however, the number impacted would not be disproportionate to the total number of residents impacted. The project would also displace 15.2 acres of wetlands, 32.4 acres of woodland, and 6.2 acres of grassland, and the alignment would traverse 28.3 acres of 100-year floodplain land, two acres of Bayou Desiard, the Sparta Aquifer, and at least three hazardous waste sites. Approximately 17.4 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected. The project would impact of potential habitat for Louisiana black bear, a federally protected species. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 15 receptive receptor sites by 2030. One railroad crossing and three transmission line crossings would be required, as would three gas lines, two to three gas wells, three sewer lines, Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 17 to 21 sensitive receptors. 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 04-0104D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050070, 387 pages and maps, February 17, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LSX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANSAS+LANE+CONNECTOR%2C+MONROE%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=KANSAS+LANE+CONNECTOR%2C+MONROE%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 - Final. Preparation date: February 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. AN - 16347193; 11408 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a partially controlled access roadway between the intersection of US 80 (Desiard Street) and existing Kansas Lane to the south and the intersection of US 165 and the Forsythe Avenue Extension to the north in the city of Monroe and Ouachita Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The facility, to be known as the Kansas Lane Connector, would extend 2.5 miles through the northeastern Louisiana parish. The 2.96-square-mile project study area includes residential areas, a large undeveloped area, the University of Louisiana at Monroe campus, and a portion of Bayou Desiard. The region is characterized by an increasing travel demand. Five build alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final supplemental EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 2.45 miles to 2.61 miles. The preferred alternative (Northern Alternative) would extend 2.61 miles. Estimated cost of the Northern Alternative is $16.4 million, including $2.5 million for rights-of-way acquisition. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would provide a roadway that would reduce traffic congestion along existing US 80 and US 165, thereby improving area-wide mobility and safety. The facility would offer a much more direct route between northern residential and commercial office areas, eastern residential areas, and the southern retail, commercial, and industrial areas of Monroe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 8 residences and 24 other residences. Some low-income and minority residents would be affected, particularly in the Ingleside neighborhood; however, the number impacted would not be disproportionate to the total number of residents impacted. The project would also displace 15.2 acres of wetlands, 32.4 acres of woodland, and 6.2 acres of grassland, and the alignment would traverse 28.3 acres of 100-year floodplain land, two acres of Bayou Desiard, the Sparta Aquifer, and at least three hazardous waste sites. Approximately 17.4 acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected. The project would impact of potential habitat for Louisiana black bear, a federally protected species. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 15 receptive receptor sites by 2030. One railroad crossing and three transmission line crossings would be required, as would three gas lines, two to three gas wells, three sewer lines, Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 17 to 21 sensitive receptors. 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 04-0104D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 050070, 387 pages and maps, February 17, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LSX-EIS-03-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16347193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KANSAS+LANE+CONNECTOR%2C+MONROE%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=KANSAS+LANE+CONNECTOR%2C+MONROE%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 - Final. Preparation date: February 17, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETERMINATION OF THE LEVEL OF TRAINING ON THE OVERHILLS TRACT, FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND AND HARNETT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DETERMINATION OF THE LEVEL OF TRAINING ON THE OVERHILLS TRACT, FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND AND HARNETT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36370521; 050288D-050062_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The complete integration of the Overhills Tract into the training program at Fort Bragg, Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina is proposed. The fort serves as headquarters for the XVIII Airborne Corps and Army Special Operations Command and is home to the 82nd Airborne Division. Units assigned to the fort represent the spectrum of combat, combat support, and combat service support forces. The primary mission of the forest is the training and deployment of military units. The XVIII Airborne Corps is the command element for America's Contingency Corps and its mission of power protection, which is the ability of the nation to act in a crisis, deter aggressive actions, and enhance regional stability. Part of the power projection is force protection or, more specifically, the demonstrated ability of the Army to deploy rapidly and operate anywhere in the world. Fort Bragg and the adjacent Pope Air Force Base (AFB) serve and the nation's leading force projection platform for this force. An average of 2.5 million personnel days of training is conducted at Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall, a sub-installation of the fort, each year. In 1995, the Department of the Army directed the Fort Bragg Land Use Requirement Study to determine the adequacy of the installation's training areas. The report identified a shortfall of maneuver lane of 81,876 acres and a weapons range and impact area shortfall of 43,636 acres. To reduce this training land deficit, the Army purchased the 10,580-acre Overhills property in 1997; the property adjoins the northern boundaries of the fort and Pope AFB. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative IV) would maximize training and existing recreational amenities and provide no protection for the Overhills Historic District. The maximum training level would be increased to accommodate brigade-size units, and the Overhills would be used in the same manner as are other training areas on Fort Bragg. Approximately 5,000 personnel would have access to the Overhills for training purposes at one time. While the Overhills tract alone would not be large enough to accommodate a full brigade exercise, Alternative IV would allow brigade exercises to be conducted throughout the entire Northern Training Area. This increased level of activity would not include the development of drop zones, firing points, or observation points on the Overhills; existing open areas would be used for these purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the integration plan would enhance the overall capability of the installation to perform its primary mission, that being the training and deployment of troops. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With the exception of hunting and fishing, the preferred action would eliminate recreational activities within the Overhills due to the need for maneuverable frontage and flexibility; hunting and fishing would continue to be allowed in accordance with the fort's integrated natural resource management plan and XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Brag regulations. Development within the area would be restricted due to safety risks during battlefield maneuvers. Military operations would disturb and contaminate soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and release toxins into wetlands and surface and groundwater flows in the area due to the explosion of ordnance and use of heavily armored vehicles. Explosions and vehicle movements would also result in intermittent noise emissions, which would disproportionately affect local minority residents. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050062, 168 pages and maps, February 11, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Air Force) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Joint) KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Soil Pollution KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Fort Bragg KW - North Carolina KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETERMINATION+OF+THE+LEVEL+OF+TRAINING+ON+THE+OVERHILLS+TRACT%2C+FORT+BRAGG%2C+CUMBERLAND+AND+HARNETT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=DETERMINATION+OF+THE+LEVEL+OF+TRAINING+ON+THE+OVERHILLS+TRACT%2C+FORT+BRAGG%2C+CUMBERLAND+AND+HARNETT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DETERMINATION OF THE LEVEL OF TRAINING ON THE OVERHILLS TRACT, FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND AND HARNETT COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16346504; 11400 AB - PURPOSE: The complete integration of the Overhills Tract into the training program at Fort Bragg, Cumberland and Harnett Counties, North Carolina is proposed. The fort serves as headquarters for the XVIII Airborne Corps and Army Special Operations Command and is home to the 82nd Airborne Division. Units assigned to the fort represent the spectrum of combat, combat support, and combat service support forces. The primary mission of the forest is the training and deployment of military units. The XVIII Airborne Corps is the command element for America's Contingency Corps and its mission of power protection, which is the ability of the nation to act in a crisis, deter aggressive actions, and enhance regional stability. Part of the power projection is force protection or, more specifically, the demonstrated ability of the Army to deploy rapidly and operate anywhere in the world. Fort Bragg and the adjacent Pope Air Force Base (AFB) serve and the nation's leading force projection platform for this force. An average of 2.5 million personnel days of training is conducted at Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall, a sub-installation of the fort, each year. In 1995, the Department of the Army directed the Fort Bragg Land Use Requirement Study to determine the adequacy of the installation's training areas. The report identified a shortfall of maneuver lane of 81,876 acres and a weapons range and impact area shortfall of 43,636 acres. To reduce this training land deficit, the Army purchased the 10,580-acre Overhills property in 1997; the property adjoins the northern boundaries of the fort and Pope AFB. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative I), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative IV) would maximize training and existing recreational amenities and provide no protection for the Overhills Historic District. The maximum training level would be increased to accommodate brigade-size units, and the Overhills would be used in the same manner as are other training areas on Fort Bragg. Approximately 5,000 personnel would have access to the Overhills for training purposes at one time. While the Overhills tract alone would not be large enough to accommodate a full brigade exercise, Alternative IV would allow brigade exercises to be conducted throughout the entire Northern Training Area. This increased level of activity would not include the development of drop zones, firing points, or observation points on the Overhills; existing open areas would be used for these purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the integration plan would enhance the overall capability of the installation to perform its primary mission, that being the training and deployment of troops. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With the exception of hunting and fishing, the preferred action would eliminate recreational activities within the Overhills due to the need for maneuverable frontage and flexibility; hunting and fishing would continue to be allowed in accordance with the fort's integrated natural resource management plan and XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Brag regulations. Development within the area would be restricted due to safety risks during battlefield maneuvers. Military operations would disturb and contaminate soils and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and release toxins into wetlands and surface and groundwater flows in the area due to the explosion of ordnance and use of heavily armored vehicles. Explosions and vehicle movements would also result in intermittent noise emissions, which would disproportionately affect local minority residents. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050062, 168 pages and maps, February 11, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Fish KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Hunting Management KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Air Force) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Military Operations (Joint) KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Safety KW - Soil Pollution KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Fort Bragg KW - North Carolina KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DETERMINATION+OF+THE+LEVEL+OF+TRAINING+ON+THE+OVERHILLS+TRACT%2C+FORT+BRAGG%2C+CUMBERLAND+AND+HARNETT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=DETERMINATION+OF+THE+LEVEL+OF+TRAINING+ON+THE+OVERHILLS+TRACT%2C+FORT+BRAGG%2C+CUMBERLAND+AND+HARNETT+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Fort Bragg, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 11, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MANASSAS NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK BYPASS STUDY, PRINCE WILLIAM AND FAIRFAX COUNTIES, VIRGINIA. AN - 36423333; 11397 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a bypass of the Manassas National Battlefield Park in Prince William and Fairfax counties, Virginia is proposed. The park was established in 1940 to preserve the scene of two major Civil War battles, the first major engagement of the war and a larger battle resulting in greater casualties. The park is one of 31 Civil War cites in the National park System and is visited by 800,000 persons every year. Currently, the park experiences daily congestion within the center of area on both routes, as well as heavy volumes of cut-through commuter traffic traversing some of the most sensitive historic resources in the park. The conflict between park-related activities and non-park cut-through traffic on US 29 and VA 234 has resulted in several problems, including disturbance to historic resources, park interpretation conflicts, and serious threats to public safety. The bypass would extend from US 29 east of the park boundary and Virginia Route 234 (VA 234) south of the boundary to US 29 west of the boundary and VA 234 north of the boundary. US 29 and VA 234 within the park would be closed to traffic. Five build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in detail in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative D) would cross the park boundary and below the Field of Dreams and upgrade a portion of existing VA 234 northwest of the park. The 8.6-mile alignment would be co-located on the VA 234 Bypass North Extension. Estimated costs of rights-of-way and construction are %15.4 million and $306.8 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the bypass would remove through traffic from within the boundaries of the national park, enhancing historic preservation efforts and visitor experience and easing travel for through commuter and general purpose traffic. Better access to sites within the park would be provided, and road closures would add 76.2 acres to the park. The preferred alternative would be located partially within park boundaries in the northeast corner, minimizing impacts to residential areas such as Fairfax National Estates, Bull Run Overlook, and Sudley Mountain Estates. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, totaling 190.6 acres, would result in the displacement of 13 homes, one business, and 57.1 acres of farmland. The facility would also displace seven acres of wetlands within the limited of disturbance boundaries, 5.3 acres of National Park Service wetlands, 2,606 linear feet of stream, and 30.8 acres of floodplain. Three public parks would be affected, and 20.5 acres of Fairfax County Park Authority land and 20.6 acres of parkland would be displaced, and 54 acres within an historic district would be altered. One major stream crossing would be necessary. Five archaeological sites, four historic sites, two historical rural historical landscapes, and 17 architecturally significant structures would be marred or lost. Several significant sites pertinent to the Civil War would be affected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 29 noise sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter five potential hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050059, 312 pages and maps, February 10, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Manassas Battlefield Park KW - Virginia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36423333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK+BYPASS+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+WILLIAM+AND+FAIRFAX+COUNTIES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=MANASSAS+NATIONAL+BATTLEFIELD+PARK+BYPASS+STUDY%2C+PRINCE+WILLIAM+AND+FAIRFAX+COUNTIES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CEDAR BAYOU NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CHAMBERS AND HARRIS COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CEDAR BAYOU NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CHAMBERS AND HARRIS COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36370218; 050379D-050060_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to the Cedar Bayou Navigational Channel (CNBC) near Baytown in Harris and Chamber counties, Texas is proposed. More specifically, the project is located along the bayou from approximately Mile 3 to State Highway (SH) 46 (Mile 11). Navigation along the CBNC is currently constrained by relatively narrow and shallow channel conditions as well as the extreme curvature of bends in the upper portion of the channel, which restrict maneuverability along the channel. Future expansion of existing industries and development of new industries on the bayou are expected, resulting in the need for more barges transiting the CBNC to support these concerns. The recommended alternative would involve dredging the CBNC to a depth of 10 feet and a bottom width of 100 feet from Mile 3 to SH 146. In addition, the project would provide for a 200-foot-wide, 1,300-foot-long passing zone downstream of SH 99 at Mile 6; a cutoff channel to bypass the existing Devil's Elbow section of the channel; straightening of two bends to areas outside the existing banks of the bayou; and management of dredged material over the 50-year project life. Dredged material would be placed in Ijams Lake and two upland placement sites. Maintenance dredging would be performed at 10-year intervals. Bank armoring would be provided to prevent erosion along both the upland banks of the Devil's Elbow Cutoff and along the western levee of the Ijams Lake Placement Area. Compensatory mitigation for estuarine marsh lost due to the project would be provided by adding 15 acres of similar habitat and preserving 157.5 acres of upland habitats within the project area. In addition, 65.1 acres of estuarine marsh would be created through the beneficial use of dredged materials. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers the local authority's proposal and dredged material disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the efficiency, safety, and reliability of navigation along the CNBC, while protecting the quality of the corridor's natural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the displacement of 3.8 acres of estuarine marsh due to the dredging of the Devil's Elbow Cutoff and the easing of one bend. Approximately 131.8 acres of upland habitat would be lost by the cutoff, two bend easings, and upland placement of dredged material; these habitats include 5.5 acres of native hardwoods, 5.9 acres of tallow-dominated hardwoods, 64 acres of scrub/shrub, and 56.4 acres of improved pasture. Aquatic communities, including plankton, benthos, and nekton, would be adversely impacted by dredging and the placement of dredged material in Ijams Lake; however, these communities would be expected to recover and the project would increase the overall diversity and productivity of aquatic habitats in the project area by creating estuarine marsh within the lake. 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 Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) JF - EPA number: 050060, 181 pages and maps pages, February 10, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Estuaries KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Lakes KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - Cedar Bayou KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CEDAR+BAYOU+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+CHAMBERS+AND+HARRIS+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=CEDAR+BAYOU+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+CHAMBERS+AND+HARRIS+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CEDAR BAYOU NAVIGATION CHANNEL, CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CHAMBERS AND HARRIS COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 16358123; 11398 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of improvements to the Cedar Bayou Navigational Channel (CNBC) near Baytown in Harris and Chamber counties, Texas is proposed. More specifically, the project is located along the bayou from approximately Mile 3 to State Highway (SH) 46 (Mile 11). Navigation along the CBNC is currently constrained by relatively narrow and shallow channel conditions as well as the extreme curvature of bends in the upper portion of the channel, which restrict maneuverability along the channel. Future expansion of existing industries and development of new industries on the bayou are expected, resulting in the need for more barges transiting the CBNC to support these concerns. The recommended alternative would involve dredging the CBNC to a depth of 10 feet and a bottom width of 100 feet from Mile 3 to SH 146. In addition, the project would provide for a 200-foot-wide, 1,300-foot-long passing zone downstream of SH 99 at Mile 6; a cutoff channel to bypass the existing Devil's Elbow section of the channel; straightening of two bends to areas outside the existing banks of the bayou; and management of dredged material over the 50-year project life. Dredged material would be placed in Ijams Lake and two upland placement sites. Maintenance dredging would be performed at 10-year intervals. Bank armoring would be provided to prevent erosion along both the upland banks of the Devil's Elbow Cutoff and along the western levee of the Ijams Lake Placement Area. Compensatory mitigation for estuarine marsh lost due to the project would be provided by adding 15 acres of similar habitat and preserving 157.5 acres of upland habitats within the project area. In addition, 65.1 acres of estuarine marsh would be created through the beneficial use of dredged materials. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this draft EIS considers the local authority's proposal and dredged material disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the efficiency, safety, and reliability of navigation along the CNBC, while protecting the quality of the corridor's natural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the displacement of 3.8 acres of estuarine marsh due to the dredging of the Devil's Elbow Cutoff and the easing of one bend. Approximately 131.8 acres of upland habitat would be lost by the cutoff, two bend easings, and upland placement of dredged material; these habitats include 5.5 acres of native hardwoods, 5.9 acres of tallow-dominated hardwoods, 64 acres of scrub/shrub, and 56.4 acres of improved pasture. Aquatic communities, including plankton, benthos, and nekton, would be adversely impacted by dredging and the placement of dredged material in Ijams Lake; however, these communities would be expected to recover and the project would increase the overall diversity and productivity of aquatic habitats in the project area by creating estuarine marsh within the lake. 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 Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662) JF - EPA number: 050060, 181 pages and maps pages, February 10, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Estuaries KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Lakes KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - Cedar Bayou KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16358123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CEDAR+BAYOU+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+CHAMBERS+AND+HARRIS+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=CEDAR+BAYOU+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL%2C+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+CHAMBERS+AND+HARRIS+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMPASS PORT LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION: DEEPWATER PORT AND OFFSHORE PIPELINE, GULF OF MEXICO, APPROXIMATELY 11 MILES SOUTH OF DAUPHIN ISLAND, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA AND ONSHORE PIPELINE, SAN PATRICIO AND NUECES COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36433989; 11391 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Pubic Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving, storage, and regasification facility and associated pipelines in Mobile County, Alabama is proposed. The proposed deepwater port, to be known as Compass Port, would be located in an area approximately 11 miles south of Dauphin Island in Outer Continental Shelf Lease Block Mobile 910 in water approximately 7 feet deep. Lease block Mobile 910 is adjacent to three existing shipping fairways servicing the approaches to Mobile, Alabama and Pascaboula, Mississippi. Compass Port would consist of two separate concrete gravity-based structures (GBSs) fixed to the seabed, each containing an LNG storage tank with a capacity of 150,000 cubic meters as well as platforms inter-connected by walkways to provide for carrier berthing, LNG unloading arms, low- and high-pressure pumps, vaporizers, utility systems, and crew accommodations. The facility would be able to receive LNG carriers with a capacity of up to 255,000 cubic meters and provide a nominal delivery capacity of 1.0 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to the pipeline system, with a peak delivery capacity of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day. The offshore pipeline, extending approximately 27 miles and the onshore pipeline, extending 4.9 miles, would transport natural gas produced by the offshore LNG regasification facility to local and regional markets via existing pipelines near Coden. A 101-acre GBS structure casting basin site and a 38-acre casting basin dredged spoil disposal site at the Kiewit Offshore Services Site in San Patriciio and Nueces counties, Texas would be used for fabrication of the two GBSs. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two alternative vaporization technologies, one pipeline route alternative, and one site alternative for the GBS fabrication facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compass Port would increase the national capacity for importation of natural gas into the United States, in this case for transport to the eastern U.S. Use of the existing natural gas pipeline system in southern Alabama would render the port economically efficient. Undersea port structures would constitute an artificial reef. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the LNG facility would entail risks associated with vapor clouds and fire due to a major accidental release of gas. The LNG port would constitute a navigational impediment and vessel traffic in the area would increase somewhat. Port structures and lighting would mar the visual aesthetics for recreationists and others boating in the area. Construction, vessel operation, and GBS placement would result in short-term, minor effects of the flow of marine waters and suspension of seaflood sediments. Flow disturbances, scour, and associated turbidity resulting from the presence of the GBSs and other structures would be long-term but localized and minor. Construction activities would also affect marine mammals, sea turtles, hard bottoms, submerged aquatic vegetation, algae colonies, birds, and sensitive species. Onshore pipeline would affect 60 acres of wetlands and result in permanent loss of nine acres of forested wetlands. Development and use of the GBS fabrication facility would displace 101 acres of vegetation, including seven acres of wetland vegetation in an estuary. During fabrication site dewatering, subsidence could increase in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 050053, Draft EIS--621 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: USCG 2004-17659 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Storage KW - Subsidence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36433989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMPASS+PORT+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%3A+DEEPWATER+PORT+AND+OFFSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+APPROXIMATELY+11+MILES+SOUTH+OF+DAUPHIN+ISLAND%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+AND+ONSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+SAN+PATRICIO+AND+NUECES+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMPASS+PORT+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%3A+DEEPWATER+PORT+AND+OFFSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+APPROXIMATELY+11+MILES+SOUTH+OF+DAUPHIN+ISLAND%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+AND+ONSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+SAN+PATRICIO+AND+NUECES+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36387270; 11882-060013_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. the plan would be adopted for disposal requirements for the next 21 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this final EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. the 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 21 years, federal authorities will dredge 119.7 million cubic yards (mcy) of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 mcy; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 103.7 mcy. the recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannnock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-33). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0430D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 060013, 585 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36387248; 11882-060013_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. the plan would be adopted for disposal requirements for the next 21 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this final EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. the 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 21 years, federal authorities will dredge 119.7 million cubic yards (mcy) of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 mcy; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 103.7 mcy. the recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannnock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-33). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0430D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 060013, 585 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36387248?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36381894; 11882-060013_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. the plan would be adopted for disposal requirements for the next 21 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this final EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. the 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 21 years, federal authorities will dredge 119.7 million cubic yards (mcy) of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 mcy; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 103.7 mcy. the recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannnock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-33). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0430D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 060013, 585 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36379400; 11882-060013_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. the plan would be adopted for disposal requirements for the next 21 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this final EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. the 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 21 years, federal authorities will dredge 119.7 million cubic yards (mcy) of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 mcy; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 103.7 mcy. the recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannnock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-33). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0430D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 060013, 585 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36378050; 11882-060013_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. the plan would be adopted for disposal requirements for the next 21 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this final EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. the 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 21 years, federal authorities will dredge 119.7 million cubic yards (mcy) of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 mcy; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 103.7 mcy. the recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannnock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-33). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0430D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 060013, 585 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36375192; 11882-060013_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. the plan would be adopted for disposal requirements for the next 21 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this final EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. the 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 21 years, federal authorities will dredge 119.7 million cubic yards (mcy) of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 mcy; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 103.7 mcy. the recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannnock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-33). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0430D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 060013, 585 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36374412; 11882-060013_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. the plan would be adopted for disposal requirements for the next 21 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this final EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. the 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 21 years, federal authorities will dredge 119.7 million cubic yards (mcy) of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 mcy; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 103.7 mcy. the recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannnock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-33). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0430D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 060013, 585 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36372609; 050430D-050050_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. The plan would be used for disposal for the next 20 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this draft EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. The 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 20 years, federal authorities will dredge 122 million cubic yards of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 million cubic yards; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 106 million cubic yards. The recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. The use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 JF - EPA number: 050050, Draft EIS--496 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36372430; 11882-060013_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. the plan would be adopted for disposal requirements for the next 21 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this final EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. the 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 21 years, federal authorities will dredge 119.7 million cubic yards (mcy) of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 mcy; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 103.7 mcy. the recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannnock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. the use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-33). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0430D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 060013, 585 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMPASS PORT LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION: DEEPWATER PORT AND OFFSHORE PIPELINE, GULF OF MEXICO, APPROXIMATELY 11 MILES SOUTH OF DAUPHIN ISLAND, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA AND ONSHORE PIPELINE, SAN PATRICIO AND NUECES COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - COMPASS PORT LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION: DEEPWATER PORT AND OFFSHORE PIPELINE, GULF OF MEXICO, APPROXIMATELY 11 MILES SOUTH OF DAUPHIN ISLAND, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA AND ONSHORE PIPELINE, SAN PATRICIO AND NUECES COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36370374; 050307D-050053_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Pubic Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving, storage, and regasification facility and associated pipelines in Mobile County, Alabama is proposed. The proposed deepwater port, to be known as Compass Port, would be located in an area approximately 11 miles south of Dauphin Island in Outer Continental Shelf Lease Block Mobile 910 in water approximately 7 feet deep. Lease block Mobile 910 is adjacent to three existing shipping fairways servicing the approaches to Mobile, Alabama and Pascaboula, Mississippi. Compass Port would consist of two separate concrete gravity-based structures (GBSs) fixed to the seabed, each containing an LNG storage tank with a capacity of 150,000 cubic meters as well as platforms inter-connected by walkways to provide for carrier berthing, LNG unloading arms, low- and high-pressure pumps, vaporizers, utility systems, and crew accommodations. The facility would be able to receive LNG carriers with a capacity of up to 255,000 cubic meters and provide a nominal delivery capacity of 1.0 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to the pipeline system, with a peak delivery capacity of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day. The offshore pipeline, extending approximately 27 miles and the onshore pipeline, extending 4.9 miles, would transport natural gas produced by the offshore LNG regasification facility to local and regional markets via existing pipelines near Coden. A 101-acre GBS structure casting basin site and a 38-acre casting basin dredged spoil disposal site at the Kiewit Offshore Services Site in San Patriciio and Nueces counties, Texas would be used for fabrication of the two GBSs. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two alternative vaporization technologies, one pipeline route alternative, and one site alternative for the GBS fabrication facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compass Port would increase the national capacity for importation of natural gas into the United States, in this case for transport to the eastern U.S. Use of the existing natural gas pipeline system in southern Alabama would render the port economically efficient. Undersea port structures would constitute an artificial reef. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the LNG facility would entail risks associated with vapor clouds and fire due to a major accidental release of gas. The LNG port would constitute a navigational impediment and vessel traffic in the area would increase somewhat. Port structures and lighting would mar the visual aesthetics for recreationists and others boating in the area. Construction, vessel operation, and GBS placement would result in short-term, minor effects of the flow of marine waters and suspension of seaflood sediments. Flow disturbances, scour, and associated turbidity resulting from the presence of the GBSs and other structures would be long-term but localized and minor. Construction activities would also affect marine mammals, sea turtles, hard bottoms, submerged aquatic vegetation, algae colonies, birds, and sensitive species. Onshore pipeline would affect 60 acres of wetlands and result in permanent loss of nine acres of forested wetlands. Development and use of the GBS fabrication facility would displace 101 acres of vegetation, including seven acres of wetland vegetation in an estuary. During fabrication site dewatering, subsidence could increase in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 050053, Draft EIS--621 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: USCG 2004-17659 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Storage KW - Subsidence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMPASS+PORT+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%3A+DEEPWATER+PORT+AND+OFFSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+APPROXIMATELY+11+MILES+SOUTH+OF+DAUPHIN+ISLAND%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+AND+ONSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+SAN+PATRICIO+AND+NUECES+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMPASS+PORT+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%3A+DEEPWATER+PORT+AND+OFFSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+APPROXIMATELY+11+MILES+SOUTH+OF+DAUPHIN+ISLAND%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+AND+ONSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+SAN+PATRICIO+AND+NUECES+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36367834; 050430D-050050_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. The plan would be used for disposal for the next 20 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this draft EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. The 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 20 years, federal authorities will dredge 122 million cubic yards of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 million cubic yards; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 106 million cubic yards. The recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. The use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 JF - EPA number: 050050, Draft EIS--496 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367834?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COMPASS PORT LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION: DEEPWATER PORT AND OFFSHORE PIPELINE, GULF OF MEXICO, APPROXIMATELY 11 MILES SOUTH OF DAUPHIN ISLAND, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA AND ONSHORE PIPELINE, SAN PATRICIO AND NUECES COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - COMPASS PORT LLC DEEPWATER PORT LICENSE APPLICATION: DEEPWATER PORT AND OFFSHORE PIPELINE, GULF OF MEXICO, APPROXIMATELY 11 MILES SOUTH OF DAUPHIN ISLAND, MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA AND ONSHORE PIPELINE, SAN PATRICIO AND NUECES COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36366443; 050307D-050053_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Issuance of a Certificate of Pubic Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving, storage, and regasification facility and associated pipelines in Mobile County, Alabama is proposed. The proposed deepwater port, to be known as Compass Port, would be located in an area approximately 11 miles south of Dauphin Island in Outer Continental Shelf Lease Block Mobile 910 in water approximately 7 feet deep. Lease block Mobile 910 is adjacent to three existing shipping fairways servicing the approaches to Mobile, Alabama and Pascaboula, Mississippi. Compass Port would consist of two separate concrete gravity-based structures (GBSs) fixed to the seabed, each containing an LNG storage tank with a capacity of 150,000 cubic meters as well as platforms inter-connected by walkways to provide for carrier berthing, LNG unloading arms, low- and high-pressure pumps, vaporizers, utility systems, and crew accommodations. The facility would be able to receive LNG carriers with a capacity of up to 255,000 cubic meters and provide a nominal delivery capacity of 1.0 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas to the pipeline system, with a peak delivery capacity of 1.2 billion cubic feet per day. The offshore pipeline, extending approximately 27 miles and the onshore pipeline, extending 4.9 miles, would transport natural gas produced by the offshore LNG regasification facility to local and regional markets via existing pipelines near Coden. A 101-acre GBS structure casting basin site and a 38-acre casting basin dredged spoil disposal site at the Kiewit Offshore Services Site in San Patriciio and Nueces counties, Texas would be used for fabrication of the two GBSs. In addition to the applicant's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, two alternative vaporization technologies, one pipeline route alternative, and one site alternative for the GBS fabrication facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Compass Port would increase the national capacity for importation of natural gas into the United States, in this case for transport to the eastern U.S. Use of the existing natural gas pipeline system in southern Alabama would render the port economically efficient. Undersea port structures would constitute an artificial reef. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operation of the LNG facility would entail risks associated with vapor clouds and fire due to a major accidental release of gas. The LNG port would constitute a navigational impediment and vessel traffic in the area would increase somewhat. Port structures and lighting would mar the visual aesthetics for recreationists and others boating in the area. Construction, vessel operation, and GBS placement would result in short-term, minor effects of the flow of marine waters and suspension of seaflood sediments. Flow disturbances, scour, and associated turbidity resulting from the presence of the GBSs and other structures would be long-term but localized and minor. Construction activities would also affect marine mammals, sea turtles, hard bottoms, submerged aquatic vegetation, algae colonies, birds, and sensitive species. Onshore pipeline would affect 60 acres of wetlands and result in permanent loss of nine acres of forested wetlands. Development and use of the GBS fabrication facility would displace 101 acres of vegetation, including seven acres of wetland vegetation in an estuary. During fabrication site dewatering, subsidence could increase in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). JF - EPA number: 050053, Draft EIS--621 pages, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: USCG 2004-17659 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fires KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Harbor Structures KW - Marine Mammals KW - Natural Gas KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reefs KW - Safety KW - Storage KW - Subsidence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Deepwater Port Act of 1974, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COMPASS+PORT+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%3A+DEEPWATER+PORT+AND+OFFSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+APPROXIMATELY+11+MILES+SOUTH+OF+DAUPHIN+ISLAND%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+AND+ONSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+SAN+PATRICIO+AND+NUECES+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=COMPASS+PORT+LLC+DEEPWATER+PORT+LICENSE+APPLICATION%3A+DEEPWATER+PORT+AND+OFFSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+GULF+OF+MEXICO%2C+APPROXIMATELY+11+MILES+SOUTH+OF+DAUPHIN+ISLAND%2C+MOBILE+COUNTY%2C+ALABAMA+AND+ONSHORE+PIPELINE%2C+SAN+PATRICIO+AND+NUECES+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&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: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE HARBOR AND CHANNELS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 16357945; 11389 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for management of dredged material taken from the Baltimore Harbor in Baltimore County, Maryland during maintenance and expansion projects is proposed. The plan would be used for disposal for the next 20 years. The federal government maintains a series of main channels, approach channels, and connecting channels that provide passage from the Virginia Capes into Baltimore Harbor and northward in the Chesapeake Bay to a point south of Pooles Island. The specific projects considered in this draft EIS include the 42-Foot Project, the 50-Foot Project, and the Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project. The 42-Foot Project includes the southern approach and connecting channels leading to the Inland Waterway and branch channels in the Curtis Creek and Ferry Bar reaches of the harbor. The 50-Foot Project includes a uniform main channel through the Chesapeake Bay from the Virginia Capes to Fort McHenry in the Port of Baltimore. The Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels Project covers improvements and maintenance of two anchorages, a turning basin, and branch channels to Dundalk, Seagrit, and South Locust Point Marine Terminals within Baltimore Harbor. The Inland Waterway, extending from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay. Over the next 20 years, federal authorities will dredge 122 million cubic yards of material from the channels, whereas current disposal capacity would only accommodate 16 million cubic yards; hence, there is a disposal capacity shortfall of 106 million cubic yards. The recommended plan would provide for continued use of open water placement in Virginia at the Dam Neck, Rappahannock Shoal, and Wolf Trap sites; optimized use of existing dredged material management sites in Maryland, including the Pooles Island Open Water Site, Hart-Miller Island Dredged Material Containment Facility, Cox Creek Confined Disposal Facility, and Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project; use of multiple confined disposal facilities for harbor material in the Patapsco River; expansion of the Poplar Island Environmental Restoration Project, large island restoration along the Middle Chesapeake Bay; and wetland restoration placement in Dorchester County. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers numerous disposal alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The dredged material management plan would provide for an economically and environmentally sound means of disposal of material dredged from the federal projects related to the Baltimore Harbor for the next 20 years. The use of dredged material for beneficial purposes, including restoring and creating wetlands and island habitat, would be maximized. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal of dredged material would result in permanent changes in land uses in the affected areas and the loss of shallow water habitat. Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos at the affected sites and release sediment, sometimes including contaminated sediment, into the local water column. Cultural sites could be disturbed or buried, and recreational activities would be marred. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Acts of 1917, 1927, 1940, 1945, 1958, and 1970 and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 JF - EPA number: 050050, Draft EIS--496 pages and maps, CD-ROM, February 4, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Bays KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Islands KW - Land Use KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Recreation KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Chesapeake Bay KW - Delaware KW - Delaware River KW - Maryland KW - Patapsco River KW - Virginia KW - River and Harbor Act of 1917, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1927, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1940, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1945, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE+HARBOR+AND+CHANNELS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 4, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AYD MILL ROAD FROM I-35E TO ST. ANTHONY AVENUE (I-94) (1.6 MILES), SAINT PAUL, RANSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - AYD MILL ROAD FROM I-35E TO ST. ANTHONY AVENUE (I-94) (1.6 MILES), SAINT PAUL, RANSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36368420; 050420F-050061_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement and extension of Ayd Mill Road in the southwestern portion of Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota is proposed. Ayd Mill Road is a 1.6-mile four-lane, divided road running from Jefferson (approximately 600 feet east of Lexington) near Interstate 35E (I-35E) on the southeast to Selby (approximately 300 feet east of Saratoga) on the northwest. Constructed in the 1960s, the roadway consists of two lanes in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. The facility is grade-separated, with ramped access at Jefferson and Shelby and a combination of half ramps and half at-grade intersections at St. Clair, Grand, and Hamline. The mainline tracks of the Canadian Pacific Railroad run parallel to the east side of Ayd Mill Road. Currently functioning as a minor arterial, the road is to be classified as a future principal arterial in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Transportation Plan if improvements consistent with the classification are made. Numerous problems affect the corridor, including those related to traffic volume, accidents, access to and from I-35E and I-94, local access, air and noise pollution, age and condition of the pavement, lack of park space and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and concerns about storm water runoff. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) are addressed in the draft EIS. This final EIS identifies and describes the preferred alternative (Alternative 5, also known as the Four-Lane Extension Alternative). Alternative 2 would implement a transportation system management/travel demand management scheme within the corridor. Alternative 3 would remove the existing road and replace it with a linear park. Alternative 4 would replace the existing roadway with a two-lane roadway, extend the north limit along the railroad spur alignment across I-94 to St. Anthony, and open the ramps at the south end to provide a direct connection to I-35E; access to I-94 would utilize St. Anthony and Concordia and existing entrance/exit ramps. Alternatives 5 and 6 would involve reconstruction of the existing roadway, extension of the north limit along the railroad spur alignment across I-94 to St. Anthony, and opening of the ramps at the south to provide a direct connection to I-35E. Under Alternative 5, access to I-94 would utilize St. Anthony and Concordia and existing entrance/exit ramps. Under Alternative 6, access to I-94 would utilize new bridge ramps constructed between Snelling and Ayd Mill Road. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $4.0 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 9.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives, excepting Alternative 3, would enhance transportation within the corridor, particularly with respect to reduction in peak hour congestion. Alternative 3 would substantially increase parkland and associated recreational opportunities within the area, including provision of bicycle and pedestrian trails. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would result in displacement of four businesses and 70 to 90 employees. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 3, would result in noise levels in excess of federal standards for some receptors along the corridor. Alternatives 5 and 6 would increase the extent of impervious surface LEGAL MANDATES: 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 99-0156D, Volume 23, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050061, Final EIS--618 pages and maps, Draft EIS--208 pages, February 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-98-01-F KW - Cost Assessments KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Minnesota KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368420?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AYD+MILL+ROAD+FROM+I-35E+TO+ST.+ANTHONY+AVENUE+%28I-94%29+%281.6+MILES%29%2C+SAINT+PAUL%2C+RANSEY+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=AYD+MILL+ROAD+FROM+I-35E+TO+ST.+ANTHONY+AVENUE+%28I-94%29+%281.6+MILES%29%2C+SAINT+PAUL%2C+RANSEY+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Saint Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AYD MILL ROAD FROM I-35E TO ST. ANTHONY AVENUE (I-94) (1.6 MILES), SAINT PAUL, RANSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 16346654; 11399 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement and extension of Ayd Mill Road in the southwestern portion of Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota is proposed. Ayd Mill Road is a 1.6-mile four-lane, divided road running from Jefferson (approximately 600 feet east of Lexington) near Interstate 35E (I-35E) on the southeast to Selby (approximately 300 feet east of Saratoga) on the northwest. Constructed in the 1960s, the roadway consists of two lanes in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. The facility is grade-separated, with ramped access at Jefferson and Shelby and a combination of half ramps and half at-grade intersections at St. Clair, Grand, and Hamline. The mainline tracks of the Canadian Pacific Railroad run parallel to the east side of Ayd Mill Road. Currently functioning as a minor arterial, the road is to be classified as a future principal arterial in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Transportation Plan if improvements consistent with the classification are made. Numerous problems affect the corridor, including those related to traffic volume, accidents, access to and from I-35E and I-94, local access, air and noise pollution, age and condition of the pavement, lack of park space and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and concerns about storm water runoff. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) are addressed in the draft EIS. This final EIS identifies and describes the preferred alternative (Alternative 5, also known as the Four-Lane Extension Alternative). Alternative 2 would implement a transportation system management/travel demand management scheme within the corridor. Alternative 3 would remove the existing road and replace it with a linear park. Alternative 4 would replace the existing roadway with a two-lane roadway, extend the north limit along the railroad spur alignment across I-94 to St. Anthony, and open the ramps at the south end to provide a direct connection to I-35E; access to I-94 would utilize St. Anthony and Concordia and existing entrance/exit ramps. Alternatives 5 and 6 would involve reconstruction of the existing roadway, extension of the north limit along the railroad spur alignment across I-94 to St. Anthony, and opening of the ramps at the south to provide a direct connection to I-35E. Under Alternative 5, access to I-94 would utilize St. Anthony and Concordia and existing entrance/exit ramps. Under Alternative 6, access to I-94 would utilize new bridge ramps constructed between Snelling and Ayd Mill Road. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $4.0 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 9.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: All build alternatives, excepting Alternative 3, would enhance transportation within the corridor, particularly with respect to reduction in peak hour congestion. Alternative 3 would substantially increase parkland and associated recreational opportunities within the area, including provision of bicycle and pedestrian trails. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would result in displacement of four businesses and 70 to 90 employees. All alternatives, excepting Alternative 3, would result in noise levels in excess of federal standards for some receptors along the corridor. Alternatives 5 and 6 would increase the extent of impervious surface LEGAL MANDATES: 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 99-0156D, Volume 23, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050061, Final EIS--618 pages and maps, Draft EIS--208 pages, February 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-98-01-F KW - Cost Assessments KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Urban Development KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Minnesota KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16346654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AYD+MILL+ROAD+FROM+I-35E+TO+ST.+ANTHONY+AVENUE+%28I-94%29+%281.6+MILES%29%2C+SAINT+PAUL%2C+RANSEY+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=AYD+MILL+ROAD+FROM+I-35E+TO+ST.+ANTHONY+AVENUE+%28I-94%29+%281.6+MILES%29%2C+SAINT+PAUL%2C+RANSEY+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Saint Paul, Minnesota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 2, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Simulation of a semipermanent wetland basin in the Cottonwood Lake area, east-central North Dakota AN - 51722511; 2005-032720 AB - A coupled surface/subsurface hydrologic model was developed to examine the effects of climatic conditions on stage fluctuations within a semipermanent wetland located in the Prairie Pothole region of east-central North Dakota. Model calibration was accomplished using data collected from 1981 until 1996 to encompass extreme climatic conditions. Simulation results suggest that wetland inflows are dominated by runoff (36%), direct precipitation to the lake (45%) and groundwater inflows (19%), while outflow from the wetland is primarily evaporation (84%) and groundwater discharge to the underlying aquifer (16%). Modeled surface runoff produces short duration, high magnitude flows typically associated with spring thaw while modeled groundwater provides flows smaller in magnitude but longer in duration that may be increasingly important to wetland stage during extended periods of drought and flood. Despite an oversimplification of the complex groundwater component of the wetland system it was found that this modeling approach was able to predict system response over 16 years under extreme climatic conditions. JF - Journal of Hydrologic Engineering AU - Carroll, Rosemary AU - Pohll, Greg AU - Tracy, John AU - Winter, Tom AU - Smith, Ronald Y1 - 2005/02// PY - 2005 DA - February 2005 SP - 70 EP - 84 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY VL - 10 IS - 1 SN - 1084-0699, 1084-0699 KW - United States KW - snow water equivalent KW - data processing KW - calibration KW - atmospheric precipitation KW - Stutsman County North Dakota KW - observations KW - ground water KW - North Dakota KW - sensitivity analysis KW - mass balance KW - snow KW - digital simulation KW - discharge KW - hydrology KW - numerical models KW - snowmelt KW - surface water KW - prediction KW - east-central North Dakota KW - MODFLOW KW - water balance KW - potholes KW - two-dimensional models KW - recharge KW - hydraulic head KW - wetlands KW - runoff KW - Cottonwood Lake KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51722511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydrologic+Engineering&rft.atitle=Simulation+of+a+semipermanent+wetland+basin+in+the+Cottonwood+Lake+area%2C+east-central+North+Dakota&rft.au=Carroll%2C+Rosemary%3BPohll%2C+Greg%3BTracy%2C+John%3BWinter%2C+Tom%3BSmith%2C+Ronald&rft.aulast=Carroll&rft.aufirst=Rosemary&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=70&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydrologic+Engineering&rft.issn=10840699&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%291084-0699%282005%2910%3A1%2870%29 L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/heo/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 43 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - atmospheric precipitation; calibration; Cottonwood Lake; data processing; digital simulation; discharge; east-central North Dakota; ground water; hydraulic head; hydrology; mass balance; MODFLOW; North Dakota; numerical models; observations; potholes; prediction; recharge; runoff; sensitivity analysis; snow; snow water equivalent; snowmelt; Stutsman County North Dakota; surface water; two-dimensional models; United States; water balance; wetlands DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2005)10:1(70) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Austin Dam, Pennsylvania; the sliding failure of a concrete gravity dam AN - 51715297; 2005-042810 AB - The Austin Dam, a concrete gravity structure, failed catastrophically on September 30, 1911, less than 2 years after its construction. Several engineering evaluations of the failure have been made since immediately following the disaster. Engineers involved in the construction of the dam recognized early on that the dam failed by sliding on its rock foundation. The dam was constructed on interbedded sedimentary rock, and its foundation was taken to a depth of approximately 4 ft (1.2 m). Although studies of the orientation of the failed blocks of the dam and other site evidence pointed to a sliding failure, no detailed quantitative studies have been done. Recent test pit excavations showed that the critical interface for sliding was a sandstone/shale contact located at a shallow depth below the base of the dam. Stability analyses based on shear-strength tests of the different interfaces of the foundation (concrete/sandstone, sandstone/sandstone, sandstone/shale, and shale/shale) showed that the dam was safe against a bearing capacity failure, but unsafe with respect to sliding and overturning. The lowest factor of safety of 0.6 corresponded to the sandstone/shale interface, as stated above. The major factors believed to have contributed to the failure include low shear strength of the foundation materials, inadequate provisions for reducing the uplift pressure, and weak concrete. The project stands as the sixth worst dam failure in U.S. history in terms of loss of life, and this case history provides numerous lessons with regard to dam safety. JF - Environmental & Engineering Geoscience AU - Martt, Daniel F AU - Shakoor, Abdul AU - Greene, Brian H Y1 - 2005/02// PY - 2005 DA - February 2005 SP - 61 EP - 72 PB - Association of Engineering Geologists and the Geological Society of America, College Station, TX VL - 11 IS - 1 SN - 1078-7275, 1078-7275 KW - United States KW - bedrock KW - friction angles KW - failures KW - experimental studies KW - geologic hazards KW - engineering properties KW - stability KW - mechanical properties KW - rock mechanics KW - laboratory studies KW - foundations KW - sedimentary rocks KW - concrete dams KW - Potter County Pennsylvania KW - dams KW - Austin Dam KW - gravity dams KW - Pennsylvania KW - causes KW - catastrophes KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51715297?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+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.atitle=Austin+Dam%2C+Pennsylvania%3B+the+sliding+failure+of+a+concrete+gravity+dam&rft.au=Martt%2C+Daniel+F%3BShakoor%2C+Abdul%3BGreene%2C+Brian+H&rft.aulast=Martt&rft.aufirst=Daniel&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=61&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.issn=10787275&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2F11.1.61 L2 - http://eeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 29 N1 - PubXState - TX N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 6 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ENGEA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Austin Dam; bedrock; catastrophes; causes; concrete dams; dams; engineering properties; experimental studies; failures; foundations; friction angles; geologic hazards; gravity dams; laboratory studies; mechanical properties; Pennsylvania; Potter County Pennsylvania; rock mechanics; sedimentary rocks; stability; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/11.1.61 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Use of small-scale electro-osmotic systems in controlling groundwater movement around structures AN - 51715280; 2005-042809 AB - Small-scale electro-osmotic systems for use around commercial and residential structures are becoming increasingly common as a method of controlling the water seeping through concrete foundations or seeping into basements and other underground structures. These systems are designed for continuous use in moving water out of the soil adjacent to the structures. There is little engineering guidance on the selection and installation of the components for these small-scale systems. Features such as soil conditions, positioning of electrodes, operating voltages, operating patterns for decreasing polarization problems, and selecting the types of electrodes are critical in assuring efficient operation and a long service life. By screening sites to make sure that the geological conditions are appropriate and tailoring the system to fit the site, electro-osmotic dewatering can be applied safely and effectively, giving a property owner a method other than conventional drains for controlling groundwater problems on a building site. JF - Environmental & Engineering Geoscience AU - Weiss, Charles A, Jr AU - Malone, Philip G AU - Hock, Vincent F AU - McInerney, Michael K AU - Morefield, Sean W Y1 - 2005/02// PY - 2005 DA - February 2005 SP - 53 EP - 60 PB - Association of Engineering Geologists and the Geological Society of America, College Station, TX VL - 11 IS - 1 SN - 1078-7275, 1078-7275 KW - systems KW - electro-osmosis KW - electrodes KW - experimental studies KW - engineering properties KW - seepage KW - preventive measures KW - concrete KW - structures KW - ground water KW - laboratory studies KW - foundations KW - fine-grained materials KW - construction materials KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51715280?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+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.atitle=Use+of+small-scale+electro-osmotic+systems+in+controlling+groundwater+movement+around+structures&rft.au=Weiss%2C+Charles+A%2C+Jr%3BMalone%2C+Philip+G%3BHock%2C+Vincent+F%3BMcInerney%2C+Michael+K%3BMorefield%2C+Sean+W&rft.aulast=Weiss&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=53&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.issn=10787275&rft_id=info:doi/10.2113%2F11.1.53 L2 - http://eeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - PubXState - TX N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ENGEA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - concrete; construction materials; electro-osmosis; electrodes; engineering properties; experimental studies; fine-grained materials; foundations; ground water; laboratory studies; preventive measures; seepage; structures; systems DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2113/11.1.53 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geology of Grant's Canal; the Union's attempt to bypass Vicksburg, Mississippi AN - 51654160; 2006-002433 AB - Grant's Canal was the Union's attempt to bypass Vicksburg by diverting the Mississippi River across a narrow meander neck (approximately 4000 feet wide) known as Desoto Point. The initial canal project was begun by Brigadier General Thomas Williams in early summer of 1862. It was designed to bypass the fortifications at Vicksburg, then the last major stronghold on the Mississippi River. Work on the canal began June 27, 1862, but by July 24, it had stopped and Williams's forces withdrew downstream. The Confederates realized as early as the spring of 1862 that they would have to defend Vicksburg, but their strategists incorrectly assumed that an attack would come upriver rather than downriver. They also erroneously believed that shoaling at the mouth of the Mississippi River and pointbar deposits (sandbars) on the inside of meander loops would prevent any attack by deep draft vessels. In January 1863, work on the canal was resumed by troops under the command of Major General Ulysses S. Grant and the project became known as "Grant's Canal". Digging continued into spring, but a rise in the river on March 5th broke thru the cofferdam at the head of the canal and flooded the excavation. The canal immediately began to silt up despite the efforts of two steam-driven dipper dredges, put to work clearing the channel. The dredges, however, were exposed to confederate artillery fire from the bluffs at Vicksburg and driven away. By March 24th Grant had decided to make a bold change in tactics and work on the canal was abandoned. The canal project failed because of a lack of understanding river geomorphology including proper canal configuration (elevation and shape) to effectively use the river's erosive power to deepen the excavation. Ironically, nature later accomplished what the Grant's troops could not when on April 26, 1876 the Mississippi flooded across Desoto Point (forming Centennial Cutoff) and isolated Vicksburg from the Mississippi River. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/02// PY - 2005 DA - February 2005 SP - 46 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 37 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - protection KW - canals KW - geologic hazards KW - Desoto Point KW - Warren County Mississippi KW - Mississippi KW - rivers KW - excavations KW - history KW - military geology KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - navigation KW - fluvial features KW - floods KW - Mississippi River KW - Grant's Canal KW - 15:Miscellaneous UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51654160?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Geology+of+Grant%27s+Canal%3B+the+Union%27s+attempt+to+bypass+Vicksburg%2C+Mississippi&rft.au=Harrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Harrelson&rft.aufirst=Danny&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=46&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 54th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - canals; Desoto Point; excavations; floods; fluvial features; geologic hazards; Grant's Canal; history; military geology; Mississippi; Mississippi River; navigation; protection; rivers; United States; Vicksburg Mississippi; Warren County Mississippi ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Influence of geology on strategies and tactics developed by leaders in Civil War campaigns and battles AN - 51652590; 2006-002432 AB - Geologic structure, lithologies, and the resulting weathered landforms play a role in Civil War campaigns and battles. Many Northern and Southern Generals attended West Point, received terrain training, and fought in the Mexican War. Their experiences, the national strategy, and the advance in range and accuracy of battlefield weapons required new strategies and tactics in the Civil War, the first modern war. Generals use combinations of offensive or defensive tactics and strategies to achieve battlefield objectives. The mapping of landforms and resulting interpretation of maps by commanding officers in many cases determined the outcome of the battle. Topographic interpretation ranges in scale from large in establishing a strategy and planning maneuvers to the small scale in the final execution of tactics. The influence of the setting, troop protection, and the deployment of troops and artillery are all in the commander's mindset days, hours, and minutes before as well as during the battle. Even during battle chaos, terrain is an integral part of an officer's evaluation of advance, stand, and drawback options. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Larson, Robert J AU - Myers, William M AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/02// PY - 2005 DA - February 2005 SP - 46 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 37 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - geology KW - Civil War KW - topography KW - terrains KW - military geology KW - landforms KW - 15:Miscellaneous UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51652590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Influence+of+geology+on+strategies+and+tactics+developed+by+leaders+in+Civil+War+campaigns+and+battles&rft.au=Larson%2C+Robert+J%3BMyers%2C+William+M%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=46&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 54th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Civil War; geology; landforms; military geology; terrains; topography ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The impact of Vicksburg Loess on the 1863 siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi AN - 51650169; 2006-002434 AB - The City of Vicksburg, Mississippi was besieged by the armies of MG U.S. Grant from 18 May until 4 July 1863--47 days. During this time the civilian and military populations of the city were cut off from the outside world and suffered terrible depredations. Although not realized at the time, the geologic character of Pleistocene Vicksburg Loess both contributed to and alleviated the suffering of the people inside Vicksburg. First, the loess topography, resulting from its erosive nature, provided safe defiladed positions for soldiers and civilians alike, while the dendritic drainage around the city formed almost impregnable positions for Confederate fortifications. Unfortunately, Confederates would soon learn that the effectiveness of these fortifications was greatly dependant upon loess properties--1863 regulations and standards for fortifications notwithstanding. The loess topography also provided the Confederates with good places to observe Union activity, to the detriment of MG Grant's plans in at least one case. Second, the calcium carbonate structure within the loess allowed the City's defenders and citizens to construct caves to escape the constant pounding of shell and mortar fire. However, this same property allowed Union besiegers to tunnel completely under the opposing works to set explosive charges. Further, with its internal structure destroyed, the loess quickly became fine dust that caked the soldier's clothing and equipment and turned roads to quagmires after summer showers. This condition worked hard especially against the Confederates who had no place to go but to their trenches. Third, the geohydrologic properties of loess contributed to the shortage of water within the city during the siege and therefore indirectly to the outbreak of disease and to the inability of the Confederates to tread wounded soldiers. Vicksburg Pleistocene Loess did not cause the surrender of the City of Vicksburg. It is correct to say, however, that the loess properties influenced the events of the Siege of Vicksburg and the way the siege was conducted. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Myers, William M AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Larson, Robert J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005/02// PY - 2005 DA - February 2005 SP - 46 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 37 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - Quaternary KW - clastic sediments KW - Warren County Mississippi KW - Mississippi KW - Vicksburg Loess KW - Cenozoic KW - topography KW - military geology KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - sediments KW - Pleistocene KW - loess KW - calcium carbonate KW - 15:Miscellaneous UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51650169?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=The+impact+of+Vicksburg+Loess+on+the+1863+siege+of+Vicksburg%2C+Mississippi&rft.au=Myers%2C+William+M%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BLarson%2C+Robert+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Myers&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=46&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 54th annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - calcium carbonate; Cenozoic; clastic sediments; hydrology; loess; military geology; Mississippi; Pleistocene; Quaternary; sediments; topography; United States; Vicksburg Loess; Vicksburg Mississippi; Warren County Mississippi ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Environmental Science & Technology, ES & T AN - 51529085; 2006-086672 JF - Environmental Science & Technology, ES & T AU - Weber, Walter J, Jr AU - Zimmerman, John R AU - Luthy, Richard G AU - Ghosh, Upal AU - Millward, Rod N AU - Bridges, Todd S Y1 - 2005/02// PY - 2005 DA - February 2005 SP - 1197 EP - 1200 PB - American Chemical Society, Washington, DC VL - 39 IS - 4 SN - 0013-936X, 0013-936X KW - United States KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - density KW - PCBs KW - ecosystems KW - feasibility studies KW - environmental effects KW - remediation KW - California KW - absorption KW - marine sediments KW - San Francisco Bay KW - carbon KW - Milwaukee Harbor KW - sediments KW - Invertebrata KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - South Basin KW - ecology KW - reduction KW - Mollusca KW - Wisconsin KW - Macoma balthica KW - assemblages KW - pollutants KW - physicochemical properties KW - pollution KW - Macoma KW - properties KW - cost KW - solid phase KW - Bivalvia KW - organic compounds KW - Hunters Point KW - hydrocarbons KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - testing KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51529085?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+Science+%26+Technology%2C+ES+%26+T&rft.atitle=Environmental+Science+%26amp%3B+Technology%2C+ES+%26amp%3B+T&rft.au=Weber%2C+Walter+J%2C+Jr%3BZimmerman%2C+John+R%3BLuthy%2C+Richard+G%3BGhosh%2C+Upal%3BMillward%2C+Rod+N%3BBridges%2C+Todd+S&rft.aulast=Weber&rft.aufirst=Walter&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1197&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology%2C+ES+%26+T&rft.issn=0013936X&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 13 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - SuppNotes - For reference to original see Zimmerman, J. R., et al., Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 38, p. 5458-5464, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ESTHAG N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - absorption; aromatic hydrocarbons; assemblages; Bivalvia; California; carbon; chlorinated hydrocarbons; cost; density; ecology; ecosystems; environmental effects; feasibility studies; halogenated hydrocarbons; Hunters Point; hydrocarbons; Invertebrata; Macoma; Macoma balthica; marine sediments; Milwaukee Harbor; Mollusca; organic compounds; PCBs; physicochemical properties; pollutants; pollution; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; properties; reduction; remediation; San Francisco Bay; sediments; solid phase; South Basin; testing; United States; Wisconsin ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36445412; 11394 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and six build alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and South termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $668 million to $1.3 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 to 281 commercial units and up to four community/public facilities and 205 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 39 to 442 acres of floodplain and displace up to 155 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to five historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and storm water runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050056, 421 pages and maps, February, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36445412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TRINITY PARKWAY FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36372046; 050419D-050056_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Trinity Parkway as a nine-mile-long limited-access toll facility from Interstate 183 (I-183) to US 175/State Highway (SH) 310 in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas is proposed. The study area roadways include I-30, I-35E, I-45, US 175, SH 183, SH 310, and numerous local arterial streets. These roadways are currently characterized by congestion and safety problems due to capacity and geometric deficiencies and increasing traffic volumes. In addition to a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), two main corridors and six build alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The facility would consist of six, 12-foot mixed-flow main lanes, local street interchanges, and freeway-to-freeway interchanges at the north and South termini, Woodall Rogers Freeway and I-45. The posted speed limit would be 55 miles per hour. Toll collection facilities would consist of main lane plazas, ramp plazas, and ancillary facilities. The parkway would be constructed in stages, with fewer lands initially than the ultimate facility. Additional capacity would be added as traffic demand and conditions warranted. Construction of the project could be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific roadway segments could be completed and opened to traffic before the completion and opening of the entire facility. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $668 million to $1.3 billion, depending on the build alternative selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The parkway would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop encircling downtown Dallas. Local and through traffic would be separated, easing congestion in the downtown area and increasing travel times for through travelers and freight operators. Air quality in the study area would be improved, preventing the area from violating federal standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of 26 to 281 commercial units and up to four community/public facilities and 205 acres of parks and other recreational lands. The facility would affect 39 to 442 acres of floodplain and displace up to 155 acres of wetlands and 121 acres of grassland, and seven acres of high-quality wildlife habitat. One historic district, one to five historically significant bridges, and up to four historic properties would be affected. Increases in impermeable surface and storm water runoff would increase levels of peak flows, contaminants, and sediment in corridor streams. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 128 to 226 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 15 to 27 hazardous material sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050056, 421 pages and maps, February, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-D KW - Air Quality KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372046?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=TRINITY+PARKWAY+FROM+IH-35E%2FSH-183+TO+US-175%2FSH-310%2C+DALLAS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN SUNLIGHT MINE PIT RECLAMATION ALTERNATIVES, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1998). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - GOLDEN SUNLIGHT MINE PIT RECLAMATION ALTERNATIVES, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1998). AN - 36369035; 050316D-050046_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The continued operation of an open-pit gold mine by the Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc. (GSM), and the expansion of the present open-pit mine, located in central Montana, are proposed. The mine is located on public and private lands along the southern flank of Bull Mountain, five miles northeast of Whitehall. Mineral exploration and small-scale underground mining were conducted at the site from 1890 until 1958. Mining resumed at the site in 1983, although these new mining operations involved the use of cyanide vat leaching and other processes that would economically extract ore from low-grade, large-tonnage resources. In September 1994, a Montana District Court ruled that an expansion of the mine could not proceed unless an EIS was prepared. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of November 1997. The proposed action would allow mining to continue in the area until the year 2006 and would expand the pit, waste rock dump areas, and buttress area. Sheep Rock Creek would be diverted into a tributary of Conrow Creek to prevent water from contacting acid-generating waste rock. The mine's permit area would expand to include an additional 1,054 acres, and tonnage processed at the mine would increase from 34.1 million tons to 55 million tons. The final EIS of April 1998, which was issued in an abbreviated format, contained corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses the upshot of a court decision requiring GSM to include backfilling of the pit in its reclamation plan. However, the Bureau of Land Management subsequently informed the state authorities that backfilling the pit could result in unnecessary degradation of public lands ad that the Bureau must prepare this supplement and approve the modification of the reclamation plan. GSM proposed a partial pit backfill in December 2002. Key issues addressed include technical, environmental, socioeconomic, and project economics issues. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. Under the preferred alternative, known as the Underground Sump Alternative, no backfill would be placed in the pit and the underground workings would be improved and maintained as a sump for pit dewatering. The alternative would maintain a hydrologic connection between the pit bottom and the underground sump located 25 5o 75 feet below the pit. Water would be pumped from the sump, such that water would be collected in the sump and pump it to a permanent water treatment plant. By maintaining the groundwater level as low as possible in the backfill, no water would be allowed to pond in the pit bottom. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would forestall closure of the mine and provide continued employment to its work force of 208 workers. If the mine were to continue operating through 2011, it would contribute significant economic benefits to the area. No backfill would be placed in the pit to settle and no wells to damage. The mine operations and the backfill system would provide 750 jobs and annual tax revenues of $8.1 million and $322,000, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some portions of the pit high wall would be subject to raveling, talus formation, erosion, and limited sloughing. Localized failure of ceiling and walls in seep and fault areas could affect access to the dewatering system and cause subsidence. Rock fall from the ceiling and walls of the underground workings could damage the dewatering system. Sludge management would require an additional 32 gallons per minute of pit water. Groundwater levels around the pit would be drawn down permanently, affecting springs and wetlands in the area. Workers would be exposed to some occupational safety hazards due to the operation of the dewatering system as well as due to raveling and sloughing. Approximately 158 acres of mule deer habitat would be lost. Project structures would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the and final draft EISs see 97-0409D, Volume 21, Number 6 and 98-0083F, Volume 22, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050046, 301 pages, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-98/010+1990 KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Mining KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Subsidence KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION+ALTERNATIVES%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1998%29.&rft.title=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION+ALTERNATIVES%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1998%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - A Computational Tool for Simulating Plane Wave Reflectance from Layered Lossy Media AN - 19440722; 7173674 AB - A computational tool was developed to visualize radar reflection coefficients for a lossy, two-layered half-space soil geometry as a function of incidence angle. Allowable input parameters include radar frequency, top soil layer thickness, and the complex dielectric properties of both soil layers. The tool is a Microsoft Excel program that can operate on any Windows-based personal computer. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Curtis, JO Y1 - 2005/02// PY - 2005 DA - Feb 2005 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - Reflectance KW - Laboratories KW - Computers KW - Radar KW - Waves KW - Waterways KW - Electrical Properties KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19440722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Curtis%2C+JO&rft.aulast=Curtis&rft.aufirst=JO&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=A+Computational+Tool+for+Simulating+Plane+Wave+Reflectance+from+Layered+Lossy+Media&rft.title=A+Computational+Tool+for+Simulating+Plane+Wave+Reflectance+from+Layered+Lossy+Media&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GOLDEN SUNLIGHT MINE PIT RECLAMATION ALTERNATIVES, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MONTANA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1998). AN - 16343190; 11385 AB - PURPOSE: The continued operation of an open-pit gold mine by the Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc. (GSM), and the expansion of the present open-pit mine, located in central Montana, are proposed. The mine is located on public and private lands along the southern flank of Bull Mountain, five miles northeast of Whitehall. Mineral exploration and small-scale underground mining were conducted at the site from 1890 until 1958. Mining resumed at the site in 1983, although these new mining operations involved the use of cyanide vat leaching and other processes that would economically extract ore from low-grade, large-tonnage resources. In September 1994, a Montana District Court ruled that an expansion of the mine could not proceed unless an EIS was prepared. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of November 1997. The proposed action would allow mining to continue in the area until the year 2006 and would expand the pit, waste rock dump areas, and buttress area. Sheep Rock Creek would be diverted into a tributary of Conrow Creek to prevent water from contacting acid-generating waste rock. The mine's permit area would expand to include an additional 1,054 acres, and tonnage processed at the mine would increase from 34.1 million tons to 55 million tons. The final EIS of April 1998, which was issued in an abbreviated format, contained corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses the upshot of a court decision requiring GSM to include backfilling of the pit in its reclamation plan. However, the Bureau of Land Management subsequently informed the state authorities that backfilling the pit could result in unnecessary degradation of public lands ad that the Bureau must prepare this supplement and approve the modification of the reclamation plan. GSM proposed a partial pit backfill in December 2002. Key issues addressed include technical, environmental, socioeconomic, and project economics issues. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. Under the preferred alternative, known as the Underground Sump Alternative, no backfill would be placed in the pit and the underground workings would be improved and maintained as a sump for pit dewatering. The alternative would maintain a hydrologic connection between the pit bottom and the underground sump located 25 5o 75 feet below the pit. Water would be pumped from the sump, such that water would be collected in the sump and pump it to a permanent water treatment plant. By maintaining the groundwater level as low as possible in the backfill, no water would be allowed to pond in the pit bottom. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would forestall closure of the mine and provide continued employment to its work force of 208 workers. If the mine were to continue operating through 2011, it would contribute significant economic benefits to the area. No backfill would be placed in the pit to settle and no wells to damage. The mine operations and the backfill system would provide 750 jobs and annual tax revenues of $8.1 million and $322,000, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some portions of the pit high wall would be subject to raveling, talus formation, erosion, and limited sloughing. Localized failure of ceiling and walls in seep and fault areas could affect access to the dewatering system and cause subsidence. Rock fall from the ceiling and walls of the underground workings could damage the dewatering system. Sludge management would require an additional 32 gallons per minute of pit water. Groundwater levels around the pit would be drawn down permanently, affecting springs and wetlands in the area. Workers would be exposed to some occupational safety hazards due to the operation of the dewatering system as well as due to raveling and sloughing. Approximately 158 acres of mule deer habitat would be lost. Project structures would mar visual aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the and final draft EISs see 97-0409D, Volume 21, Number 6 and 98-0083F, Volume 22, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050046, 301 pages, February 1, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-98/010+1990 KW - Acids KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydrology KW - Mining KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Subsidence KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Program Authorization KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343190?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION+ALTERNATIVES%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1998%29.&rft.title=GOLDEN+SUNLIGHT+MINE+PIT+RECLAMATION+ALTERNATIVES%2C+JEFFERSON+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1998%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Butte, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 1, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2004). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2004). AN - 36369006; 050418D-050043_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. This draft supplement to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste sites LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050043, 92 pages and maps, January 27, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-SD KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2004). AN - 16345739; 11382 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. This draft supplement to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste sites LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050043, 92 pages and maps, January 27, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-SD KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345739?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+SEPTEMBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 23 EXTENSION (BRANAN FIELD - CHAFFEE RD.) FROM SR 134 (103RD ST.) TO SR 8 (I-10) & SR 10 (US 90/BEAVER STREET), DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA (FM NO. 209659-1; FAP NO 9041-047-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SR 23 EXTENSION (BRANAN FIELD - CHAFFEE RD.) FROM SR 134 (103RD ST.) TO SR 8 (I-10) & SR 10 (US 90/BEAVER STREET), DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA (FM NO. 209659-1; FAP NO 9041-047-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). AN - 36369566; 050417F-050029_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 6.3 miles of multi-lane, limited access freeway to extend State Road (SR) 23 (Branan Field-Chaffee Road) North from its current terminus at SR 134 (103rd Street) to SR 8 (Interstate 10 (I-10)) and SR 10 (US 90/Beaver Street) in the city of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida is proposed. The build-out concept would provide for interchanges and collector/distributor roads and would serve as a regional connector between Clay and Duval counties. This final supplement to the final EIS considers one build alternative and a No-Build Alternative in detail. Under the build alternative, the facility would consist of a six-lane rural freeway between 103rd Street and Normandy Boulevard. Form Normandy Boulevard north to I-10 and US 90, the project would provide a four-lane rural freeway. All typical sections would have 12-foot travel lanes and a 150-foot grass median; the median would be sized to accommodate a future light rail system, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, or other multi-modal transportation facilities. Roadside swales and off-site retention areas would provide for storm-water drainage. Five interchanges would provide access to the highway; these would be located at 103rd Street, Normandy Boulevard, New World Avenue, I-10, and US 90. Rights-of-way costs are estimated at $13.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new roadway would assist in achieving the goals of the Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan and the First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organizations Transportation Improvement Plan. Congestion on SR 21 and US 17 would be reduced. The facility would provide a logical terminus for the completed portions of the Branan Field-Chaffee Road corridor to the south and serve as a link between two high-speed, limited access interstate highways in southwest Duval County that connect the rapidly growing areas of Clay County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of two businesses. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the corridor, which runs through a sparsely populated area, would increase significantly. Up to 241 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. In addition, 1,100 acres of rights-of-way would be required within Jacksonville. 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0223D, Volume 27, Number 2 JF - EPA number: 050029, 144 pages and maps, January 24, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FLA-EIS-03-01-FS KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Florida 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/36369566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+23+EXTENSION+%28BRANAN+FIELD+-+CHAFFEE+RD.%29+FROM+SR+134+%28103RD+ST.%29+TO+SR+8+%28I-10%29+%26+SR+10+%28US+90%2FBEAVER+STREET%29%2C+DUVAL+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FM+NO.+209659-1%3B+FAP+NO+9041-047-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=SR+23+EXTENSION+%28BRANAN+FIELD+-+CHAFFEE+RD.%29+FROM+SR+134+%28103RD+ST.%29+TO+SR+8+%28I-10%29+%26+SR+10+%28US+90%2FBEAVER+STREET%29%2C+DUVAL+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FM+NO.+209659-1%3B+FAP+NO+9041-047-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 23 EXTENSION (BRANAN FIELD - CHAFFEE RD.) FROM SR 134 (103RD ST.) TO SR 8 (I-10) & SR 10 (US 90/BEAVER STREET), DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA (FM NO. 209659-1; FAP NO 9041-047-C) (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2003). AN - 16358505; 11368 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 6.3 miles of multi-lane, limited access freeway to extend State Road (SR) 23 (Branan Field-Chaffee Road) North from its current terminus at SR 134 (103rd Street) to SR 8 (Interstate 10 (I-10)) and SR 10 (US 90/Beaver Street) in the city of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida is proposed. The build-out concept would provide for interchanges and collector/distributor roads and would serve as a regional connector between Clay and Duval counties. This final supplement to the final EIS considers one build alternative and a No-Build Alternative in detail. Under the build alternative, the facility would consist of a six-lane rural freeway between 103rd Street and Normandy Boulevard. Form Normandy Boulevard north to I-10 and US 90, the project would provide a four-lane rural freeway. All typical sections would have 12-foot travel lanes and a 150-foot grass median; the median would be sized to accommodate a future light rail system, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, or other multi-modal transportation facilities. Roadside swales and off-site retention areas would provide for storm-water drainage. Five interchanges would provide access to the highway; these would be located at 103rd Street, Normandy Boulevard, New World Avenue, I-10, and US 90. Rights-of-way costs are estimated at $13.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new roadway would assist in achieving the goals of the Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan and the First Coast Metropolitan Planning Organizations Transportation Improvement Plan. Congestion on SR 21 and US 17 would be reduced. The facility would provide a logical terminus for the completed portions of the Branan Field-Chaffee Road corridor to the south and serve as a link between two high-speed, limited access interstate highways in southwest Duval County that connect the rapidly growing areas of Clay County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of two businesses. Air pollutant and noise emissions within the corridor, which runs through a sparsely populated area, would increase significantly. Up to 241 acres of jurisdictional wetlands would be displaced. In addition, 1,100 acres of rights-of-way would be required within Jacksonville. 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 supplemental EIS, see 03-0223D, Volume 27, Number 2 JF - EPA number: 050029, 144 pages and maps, January 24, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FLA-EIS-03-01-FS KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Florida 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/16358505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+23+EXTENSION+%28BRANAN+FIELD+-+CHAFFEE+RD.%29+FROM+SR+134+%28103RD+ST.%29+TO+SR+8+%28I-10%29+%26+SR+10+%28US+90%2FBEAVER+STREET%29%2C+DUVAL+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FM+NO.+209659-1%3B+FAP+NO+9041-047-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.title=SR+23+EXTENSION+%28BRANAN+FIELD+-+CHAFFEE+RD.%29+FROM+SR+134+%28103RD+ST.%29+TO+SR+8+%28I-10%29+%26+SR+10+%28US+90%2FBEAVER+STREET%29%2C+DUVAL+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FM+NO.+209659-1%3B+FAP+NO+9041-047-C%29+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2003%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, JUNEAU ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT EIS OF JULY 1997). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - JUNEAU ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, JUNEAU ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT EIS OF JULY 1997). AN - 36369456; 050416D-050028_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of surface transportation within the Lynn Canal/Taiya corridor between Juneau and Haines/Skagway in southern Alaska is proposed. Juneau, the state capital and third largest city in the state, does not have direct highway access. Since the 1920's, a wide array of studies have been undertaken by those interested in a highway linking Juneau with the towns of Haines or Skagway, Alaska, or Atlin, British Columbia. Haines and Skagway both have direct highway access to the Alaska Highway that connects with the Continental Highway System. The ferry system now used to access Juneau is operating at capacity, has limited flexibility, and high user costs. Issues identified during the scoping process include the effects of improved vehicular access on quality of life of residents; and the effects of transportation improvements on Berners Bay, an area populated by sea lions and bald eagles. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of July 1997. Ten alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), a 65-mile highway would be constructed from the end of Glacier Highway at Echo Cave around Berners Bay and along the eastern coast of Lynn Canal and Taiya Inlet to Skagway, A ferry terminal would be provided north of the Katzehin River delta and a ferry known as the M/V Aurora would be used for shuttle services between Katzhin and Lutak Ferry Terminal in Haines. Marine Alaska marine Highway Service would end at Auke Bay, and the Haines to Skagway shuttle service would be discontinued. the N/V Fairweather would not longer operate in Lynn Canal. Initial capital cost of thepreferred alternative is estimated at $281 million. The 30-year life cycle costs for the project are estimated at $323 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $4.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, convenience and safety would be improved, user costs would decrease, and transportation capacity would increase to meet project demand. The tourist industry and the southern Alaska economy would benefit from increased visitation. The project would increase employment rolls in the area by 290 jobs in Juneau, 60 jobs in Skagway, and 70 jobs in Haines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The highway would traverse 58 streams, including nine streams that support anadromous fish, and the project would displace 62 acres of terrestrial habitat, 92.5 acres of wetland habitat, and 30.7 acres of essential fish habitat. Project facilities would lie within 330 feet of 57 eagle nests and 0.5 mile of 100 eagle nests. The capacity for approximately 29 bears, 38 martins, and one mountain goat would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 97-0285D, Volume 21, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050028, Draft EIS--343 pages, Appendices A-C--207 pages, Appendices D-E--179 and maps, Appendices F-H--167 pages and maps, Appendices I-K--341 pages, Appendix L--155 pages and maps, Appendices M-N--198 pages and maps, Appendix O--366 pages and maps, Appendices P-S--281 pages, AppendicesT-V-0-134 pages, January 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-97-01-DS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals 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/36369456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUNEAU+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+JUNEAU+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+EIS+OF+JULY+1997%29.&rft.title=JUNEAU+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+JUNEAU+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+EIS+OF+JULY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, JUNEAU ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT EIS OF JULY 1997). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - JUNEAU ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, JUNEAU ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT EIS OF JULY 1997). AN - 36365819; 050416D-050028_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of surface transportation within the Lynn Canal/Taiya corridor between Juneau and Haines/Skagway in southern Alaska is proposed. Juneau, the state capital and third largest city in the state, does not have direct highway access. Since the 1920's, a wide array of studies have been undertaken by those interested in a highway linking Juneau with the towns of Haines or Skagway, Alaska, or Atlin, British Columbia. Haines and Skagway both have direct highway access to the Alaska Highway that connects with the Continental Highway System. The ferry system now used to access Juneau is operating at capacity, has limited flexibility, and high user costs. Issues identified during the scoping process include the effects of improved vehicular access on quality of life of residents; and the effects of transportation improvements on Berners Bay, an area populated by sea lions and bald eagles. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of July 1997. Ten alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), a 65-mile highway would be constructed from the end of Glacier Highway at Echo Cave around Berners Bay and along the eastern coast of Lynn Canal and Taiya Inlet to Skagway, A ferry terminal would be provided north of the Katzehin River delta and a ferry known as the M/V Aurora would be used for shuttle services between Katzhin and Lutak Ferry Terminal in Haines. Marine Alaska marine Highway Service would end at Auke Bay, and the Haines to Skagway shuttle service would be discontinued. the N/V Fairweather would not longer operate in Lynn Canal. Initial capital cost of thepreferred alternative is estimated at $281 million. The 30-year life cycle costs for the project are estimated at $323 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $4.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, convenience and safety would be improved, user costs would decrease, and transportation capacity would increase to meet project demand. The tourist industry and the southern Alaska economy would benefit from increased visitation. The project would increase employment rolls in the area by 290 jobs in Juneau, 60 jobs in Skagway, and 70 jobs in Haines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The highway would traverse 58 streams, including nine streams that support anadromous fish, and the project would displace 62 acres of terrestrial habitat, 92.5 acres of wetland habitat, and 30.7 acres of essential fish habitat. Project facilities would lie within 330 feet of 57 eagle nests and 0.5 mile of 100 eagle nests. The capacity for approximately 29 bears, 38 martins, and one mountain goat would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 97-0285D, Volume 21, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050028, Draft EIS--343 pages, Appendices A-C--207 pages, Appendices D-E--179 and maps, Appendices F-H--167 pages and maps, Appendices I-K--341 pages, Appendix L--155 pages and maps, Appendices M-N--198 pages and maps, Appendix O--366 pages and maps, Appendices P-S--281 pages, AppendicesT-V-0-134 pages, January 18, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-97-01-DS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals 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/36365819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUNEAU+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+JUNEAU+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+EIS+OF+JULY+1997%29.&rft.title=JUNEAU+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+JUNEAU+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+EIS+OF+JULY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JUNEAU ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS, JUNEAU ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT EIS OF JULY 1997). AN - 16358452; 11367 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of surface transportation within the Lynn Canal/Taiya corridor between Juneau and Haines/Skagway in southern Alaska is proposed. Juneau, the state capital and third largest city in the state, does not have direct highway access. Since the 1920's, a wide array of studies have been undertaken by those interested in a highway linking Juneau with the towns of Haines or Skagway, Alaska, or Atlin, British Columbia. Haines and Skagway both have direct highway access to the Alaska Highway that connects with the Continental Highway System. The ferry system now used to access Juneau is operating at capacity, has limited flexibility, and high user costs. Issues identified during the scoping process include the effects of improved vehicular access on quality of life of residents; and the effects of transportation improvements on Berners Bay, an area populated by sea lions and bald eagles. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of July 1997. Ten alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), a 65-mile highway would be constructed from the end of Glacier Highway at Echo Cave around Berners Bay and along the eastern coast of Lynn Canal and Taiya Inlet to Skagway, A ferry terminal would be provided north of the Katzehin River delta and a ferry known as the M/V Aurora would be used for shuttle services between Katzhin and Lutak Ferry Terminal in Haines. Marine Alaska marine Highway Service would end at Auke Bay, and the Haines to Skagway shuttle service would be discontinued. the N/V Fairweather would not longer operate in Lynn Canal. Initial capital cost of thepreferred alternative is estimated at $281 million. The 30-year life cycle costs for the project are estimated at $323 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $4.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, convenience and safety would be improved, user costs would decrease, and transportation capacity would increase to meet project demand. The tourist industry and the southern Alaska economy would benefit from increased visitation. The project would increase employment rolls in the area by 290 jobs in Juneau, 60 jobs in Skagway, and 70 jobs in Haines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The highway would traverse 58 streams, including nine streams that support anadromous fish, and the project would displace 62 acres of terrestrial habitat, 92.5 acres of wetland habitat, and 30.7 acres of essential fish habitat. Project facilities would lie within 330 feet of 57 eagle nests and 0.5 mile of 100 eagle nests. The capacity for approximately 29 bears, 38 martins, and one mountain goat would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 97-0285D, Volume 21, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050028, Draft EIS--343 pages, Appendices A-C--207 pages, Appendices D-E--179 and maps, Appendices F-H--167 pages and maps, Appendices I-K--341 pages, Appendix L--155 pages and maps, Appendices M-N--198 pages and maps, Appendix O--366 pages and maps, Appendices P-S--281 pages, AppendicesT-V-0-134 pages, January 18, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-97-01-DS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals 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/16358452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JUNEAU+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+JUNEAU+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+EIS+OF+JULY+1997%29.&rft.title=JUNEAU+ACCESS+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+JUNEAU+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+EIS+OF+JULY+1997%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Juneau, Alaska; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 18, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. AN - 36371797; 040279D-050011_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements at the Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD), Dulles, Virginia is proposed. In 1985, the federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the owner and operator of IAD at the time, completed a mater plan study identifying a comprehensive program for IAD development. FAA leased IAD to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1987, and the authority assumed responsibility and control of IAD property until 2067. Elements of the long-term development program have been refined through planning studies completed in 190, 202, and 2003. In 2002, the authorities prepared an updated airport layout plan (ALP) depicting the major development projects recommended in the 1985 master plan study and subsequent planning studies. Revisions of ALP have been submitted to the FAA in 2003 and 2004. This EIS covers proposals under the ALP. proposed improvements to IAD include The ALP proposal would include a new parallel north-south runway, extending 9,473 feet at a width of 150 feet ad a new parallel east-west runway extending 10,500 feet at a width of 150 feet. The north-south runway would be located on the west side of the airport and is designated Runway 1W/19W for the purposes of this EIS, though it would be designated 1W/1W, while existing Runway 1L/19R would be re-designated Runway 1C/19C. The proposed east-west runway would be located on the south side of the airport and designated Runway 12R/30L, while existing Runway 12/30 would be re-designated Runway 12L/30R. The project would also include the construction of associated taxiways and nagivational aids for the proposed runways, property acquisition, Tier 3 Concourse development, relocation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service Sterling facilities, and extension of the automated people mover. A No Action Alternative and six action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, though only the No Action and two action alternatives are retained for detailed evaluation. Costs of the build alternatives are $1.49 billion and $1.51 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed improvements under the ALD would enable the airport to meet forecasted levels of aviation activity safely and efficiently. The new runways would reduce aircraft noise impacts related to airport operations. Optimal utilization of the IAD would be promoted. Operations during instrument meteorological conditions, including simultaneous operations on north-south and east-west runways, would be possible. The provision of redundant runways would reduce take-off and landing delays. Adequate passenger terminal and aircraft gate capacity would be provide to accommodate forecasted growth in aviation demand. IAD improvements would create over 18,000 jobs, and contribute $2.21 billion to $2.25 billion annually to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fifteen noise sensitive sites would lie within the area affected by noise levels equal to or exceeding 60 decibels on the A-weighted scale. Airport development would affect approximately 40 acres of prime farmland, 3,500 acres of biotic communities, including 174 to 180 acres of wetlands and 60,856 to 63,500 linear feet of stream. The new developments would encroach into 3 to 39 acres of floodplain land and would lie within a coastal zone management area. JF - EPA number: 050011, Volume 1--491 pages, Volume 2--631 pages, Volume 3--601 pages, Volume 4--167 pages, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Virginia UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Dulles, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. AN - 36370733; 040279D-050011_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements at the Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD), Dulles, Virginia is proposed. In 1985, the federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the owner and operator of IAD at the time, completed a mater plan study identifying a comprehensive program for IAD development. FAA leased IAD to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1987, and the authority assumed responsibility and control of IAD property until 2067. Elements of the long-term development program have been refined through planning studies completed in 190, 202, and 2003. In 2002, the authorities prepared an updated airport layout plan (ALP) depicting the major development projects recommended in the 1985 master plan study and subsequent planning studies. Revisions of ALP have been submitted to the FAA in 2003 and 2004. This EIS covers proposals under the ALP. proposed improvements to IAD include The ALP proposal would include a new parallel north-south runway, extending 9,473 feet at a width of 150 feet ad a new parallel east-west runway extending 10,500 feet at a width of 150 feet. The north-south runway would be located on the west side of the airport and is designated Runway 1W/19W for the purposes of this EIS, though it would be designated 1W/1W, while existing Runway 1L/19R would be re-designated Runway 1C/19C. The proposed east-west runway would be located on the south side of the airport and designated Runway 12R/30L, while existing Runway 12/30 would be re-designated Runway 12L/30R. The project would also include the construction of associated taxiways and nagivational aids for the proposed runways, property acquisition, Tier 3 Concourse development, relocation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service Sterling facilities, and extension of the automated people mover. A No Action Alternative and six action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, though only the No Action and two action alternatives are retained for detailed evaluation. Costs of the build alternatives are $1.49 billion and $1.51 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed improvements under the ALD would enable the airport to meet forecasted levels of aviation activity safely and efficiently. The new runways would reduce aircraft noise impacts related to airport operations. Optimal utilization of the IAD would be promoted. Operations during instrument meteorological conditions, including simultaneous operations on north-south and east-west runways, would be possible. The provision of redundant runways would reduce take-off and landing delays. Adequate passenger terminal and aircraft gate capacity would be provide to accommodate forecasted growth in aviation demand. IAD improvements would create over 18,000 jobs, and contribute $2.21 billion to $2.25 billion annually to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fifteen noise sensitive sites would lie within the area affected by noise levels equal to or exceeding 60 decibels on the A-weighted scale. Airport development would affect approximately 40 acres of prime farmland, 3,500 acres of biotic communities, including 174 to 180 acres of wetlands and 60,856 to 63,500 linear feet of stream. The new developments would encroach into 3 to 39 acres of floodplain land and would lie within a coastal zone management area. JF - EPA number: 050011, Volume 1--491 pages, Volume 2--631 pages, Volume 3--601 pages, Volume 4--167 pages, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Virginia UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Dulles, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. AN - 36369392; 040279D-050011_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements at the Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD), Dulles, Virginia is proposed. In 1985, the federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the owner and operator of IAD at the time, completed a mater plan study identifying a comprehensive program for IAD development. FAA leased IAD to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1987, and the authority assumed responsibility and control of IAD property until 2067. Elements of the long-term development program have been refined through planning studies completed in 190, 202, and 2003. In 2002, the authorities prepared an updated airport layout plan (ALP) depicting the major development projects recommended in the 1985 master plan study and subsequent planning studies. Revisions of ALP have been submitted to the FAA in 2003 and 2004. This EIS covers proposals under the ALP. proposed improvements to IAD include The ALP proposal would include a new parallel north-south runway, extending 9,473 feet at a width of 150 feet ad a new parallel east-west runway extending 10,500 feet at a width of 150 feet. The north-south runway would be located on the west side of the airport and is designated Runway 1W/19W for the purposes of this EIS, though it would be designated 1W/1W, while existing Runway 1L/19R would be re-designated Runway 1C/19C. The proposed east-west runway would be located on the south side of the airport and designated Runway 12R/30L, while existing Runway 12/30 would be re-designated Runway 12L/30R. The project would also include the construction of associated taxiways and nagivational aids for the proposed runways, property acquisition, Tier 3 Concourse development, relocation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service Sterling facilities, and extension of the automated people mover. A No Action Alternative and six action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, though only the No Action and two action alternatives are retained for detailed evaluation. Costs of the build alternatives are $1.49 billion and $1.51 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed improvements under the ALD would enable the airport to meet forecasted levels of aviation activity safely and efficiently. The new runways would reduce aircraft noise impacts related to airport operations. Optimal utilization of the IAD would be promoted. Operations during instrument meteorological conditions, including simultaneous operations on north-south and east-west runways, would be possible. The provision of redundant runways would reduce take-off and landing delays. Adequate passenger terminal and aircraft gate capacity would be provide to accommodate forecasted growth in aviation demand. IAD improvements would create over 18,000 jobs, and contribute $2.21 billion to $2.25 billion annually to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fifteen noise sensitive sites would lie within the area affected by noise levels equal to or exceeding 60 decibels on the A-weighted scale. Airport development would affect approximately 40 acres of prime farmland, 3,500 acres of biotic communities, including 174 to 180 acres of wetlands and 60,856 to 63,500 linear feet of stream. The new developments would encroach into 3 to 39 acres of floodplain land and would lie within a coastal zone management area. JF - EPA number: 050011, Volume 1--491 pages, Volume 2--631 pages, Volume 3--601 pages, Volume 4--167 pages, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Virginia UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Dulles, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. AN - 36368366; 040279D-050011_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements at the Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD), Dulles, Virginia is proposed. In 1985, the federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the owner and operator of IAD at the time, completed a mater plan study identifying a comprehensive program for IAD development. FAA leased IAD to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1987, and the authority assumed responsibility and control of IAD property until 2067. Elements of the long-term development program have been refined through planning studies completed in 190, 202, and 2003. In 2002, the authorities prepared an updated airport layout plan (ALP) depicting the major development projects recommended in the 1985 master plan study and subsequent planning studies. Revisions of ALP have been submitted to the FAA in 2003 and 2004. This EIS covers proposals under the ALP. proposed improvements to IAD include The ALP proposal would include a new parallel north-south runway, extending 9,473 feet at a width of 150 feet ad a new parallel east-west runway extending 10,500 feet at a width of 150 feet. The north-south runway would be located on the west side of the airport and is designated Runway 1W/19W for the purposes of this EIS, though it would be designated 1W/1W, while existing Runway 1L/19R would be re-designated Runway 1C/19C. The proposed east-west runway would be located on the south side of the airport and designated Runway 12R/30L, while existing Runway 12/30 would be re-designated Runway 12L/30R. The project would also include the construction of associated taxiways and nagivational aids for the proposed runways, property acquisition, Tier 3 Concourse development, relocation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service Sterling facilities, and extension of the automated people mover. A No Action Alternative and six action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, though only the No Action and two action alternatives are retained for detailed evaluation. Costs of the build alternatives are $1.49 billion and $1.51 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed improvements under the ALD would enable the airport to meet forecasted levels of aviation activity safely and efficiently. The new runways would reduce aircraft noise impacts related to airport operations. Optimal utilization of the IAD would be promoted. Operations during instrument meteorological conditions, including simultaneous operations on north-south and east-west runways, would be possible. The provision of redundant runways would reduce take-off and landing delays. Adequate passenger terminal and aircraft gate capacity would be provide to accommodate forecasted growth in aviation demand. IAD improvements would create over 18,000 jobs, and contribute $2.21 billion to $2.25 billion annually to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fifteen noise sensitive sites would lie within the area affected by noise levels equal to or exceeding 60 decibels on the A-weighted scale. Airport development would affect approximately 40 acres of prime farmland, 3,500 acres of biotic communities, including 174 to 180 acres of wetlands and 60,856 to 63,500 linear feet of stream. The new developments would encroach into 3 to 39 acres of floodplain land and would lie within a coastal zone management area. JF - EPA number: 050011, Volume 1--491 pages, Volume 2--631 pages, Volume 3--601 pages, Volume 4--167 pages, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Virginia UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Dulles, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE DESIGNATION OF THE LA-3 OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFF NEWPORT BAY, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SITE DESIGNATION OF THE LA-3 OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFF NEWPORT BAY, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36367944; 050434D-050015_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The final designation of the LA-3 ocean dredged material disposal site off Newport Bay in Orange County, California is proposed. The LA-3 site would be used in conjunction with the LA-2 site for the disposal of dredged material originating from projects located within Los Angeles and Orange counties. An overall average of 390,000 cubic yards per year of dredged material requiring ocean dumping is expected to be generated in the area. The LA-2 and LA-3 sites are located between Palos Verdes Point and Dana Point. More specifically, the LA-2 site is located five nautical miles southwest of the breakwater at San Pedro and 20.5 nautical miles from the Newport Harbor entrance. The LA-3 site is located on the slope of Newport Canyon 4.5 nautical miles southwest of the entrance to Newport Harbor. The interim LA-3 site has been used for ocean disposal of dredged material from Orange County projects, primarily projects within Newport Bay, since the 1970s. The LA-2 and LA-3 sites would be managed for maximum annual dredged material disposal quantities of 2.5 million cubic yards and 1.0 million cubic yards, respectively. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Maximum use of the LA-3 site (Alternative 3) as well as the LA-2 site is the preferred alternative. An impact, monitoring plan would be incorporated into the use of the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site designation would ensure that adequate, environmentally acceptable ocean disposal site capacity was available for suitable dredged material generated in the greater Los Angeles County/Orange County area in conjunction with other management options, including upland disposal and beneficial reuse of dredged material. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under worst-case conditions, air quality impacts during hauling of dredged material to the site could be significant, but these impacts could be mitigated through the individual dredging project, permitting process. Excepting air quality degradation, continued use of the LA-3 site is not anticipated to cause significant long-term adverse environmental impacts beyond the site boundaries. As indicated above, the site has been used for ocean disposal of dredged sediments since the 1770s and the benthic communities and sediments within the site have been altered by these ongoing activities. Benthos within the site would continue to be smothered by sediment disposal but the environmental impacts would not extend beyond site boundaries. Water quality impacts would be localized, short-term, and negligible. LA-2 site impacts, also considered in this EIS, would be similar to LA-3 site impacts. The alternative would shift the center of the LA-3 site approximately 1.3 nautical miles to the southeast of the interim LA-3 site to allow the site to encompass a region that is already disturbed by dredged material and located on a flat depositional plain that would be more amenable to monitoring via precision bathymetry. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050015, 304 pages and maps, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Newport Bay KW - Pacific Ocean KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE+DESIGNATION+OF+THE+LA-3+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFF+NEWPORT+BAY%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SITE+DESIGNATION+OF+THE+LA-3+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFF+NEWPORT+BAY%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36366114; 050413F-050013_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 17-mile four-lane limited access highway within the Trunk Highway (TH) 371 corridor from the intersection of Crow Wing County Road 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road 2/42 in Pine River. TH 371 is a major north-south highway providing important links from US 10 and the Twin Cities metropolitan area, north to the Central Lakes Region of Minnesota. The facility also serves as an important economic connector connecting regional trade centers. Tourist travel along this segment of TH 371 creates high seasonal peaks that commonly cause substantial travel delays and unsafe driving conditions. The existing two-lane highway does not meet design standards for the type and volume of traffic carried by the facility. Other highway characteristics demonstrating the need for the project includes high crash ranges, a large number of direct access points, pedestrian safety concerns, and heavy traffic congestion. Four alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this abbreviated final EIS, which primarily provides changes in the draft EIS and responses to comments on the draft. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would use the existing alignment throughout the project. All other build alternatives would use the existing alignment for the most part, though alternatives 3 and 4 would provide a bypass around Pequot Lakes and alternatives 4 and 5 would provide a bypass around Jenkins. Benefit cost ratios range from 2.4 to 3.7. Cost of the preferred alternative is $59.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve travel and enhance safety within the corridor, particularly during peak vacation seasons. The bypass segments would separate local and regional travel and improving community cohesion in the affected areas. Improved traffic operations would decrease transit travel times on routesthat use roadway within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative considered, rights-of-way requirements, ranging from 166 to 416 acres, could result in significant impacts to community cohesion in Nisswa, Pequot, Lakes, Jenkins, and Pine River. Several churches, parks, and other community resource sites could be affected. All build alternatives would affect Bobberland Park in Pequot Lakes, though no parkland would be acquired, and Paul Bunyan Trail would be impacted. All build alternatives would require relocation or utility lines and disruption of some local and regional utility services. Four or five historically significant sites would be directly and/or directly degraded. Numerous hazardous waste sites would lie within any corridor alternative selected. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal daytime standards in the vicinity of 120 to 141 residential receptor sites and federal nighttime standards in the vicinity of 195 to 311 residential receptor sites. All alternatives would affect floodplains associated with Pine River, Nisswa Creek, and Hay Creek. The project would displace 11.28 to 29.07 acres of wetlands. One nesting site for the federally protected bald eagle could be affected. Two farmland areas of statewide importance would be encountered by all alignments, resulting in possible loss of 7.3 acres of farmland. Highway structures would mar visual aesthetics in the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0220D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050013, Final EIS--201 pages ad maps, Draft EIS--177 pages and maps, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-F KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+371+IN+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+371+IN+CASS+AND+CROW+WING+COUNTIES%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 - Final. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEW RUNWAYS, TERMINAL FACILITIES, AND RELATED RACILITIES AT WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, DULLES, VIRGINIA. AN - 16359736; 11350 AB - PURPOSE: Improvements at the Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD), Dulles, Virginia is proposed. In 1985, the federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the owner and operator of IAD at the time, completed a mater plan study identifying a comprehensive program for IAD development. FAA leased IAD to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1987, and the authority assumed responsibility and control of IAD property until 2067. Elements of the long-term development program have been refined through planning studies completed in 190, 202, and 2003. In 2002, the authorities prepared an updated airport layout plan (ALP) depicting the major development projects recommended in the 1985 master plan study and subsequent planning studies. Revisions of ALP have been submitted to the FAA in 2003 and 2004. This EIS covers proposals under the ALP. proposed improvements to IAD include The ALP proposal would include a new parallel north-south runway, extending 9,473 feet at a width of 150 feet ad a new parallel east-west runway extending 10,500 feet at a width of 150 feet. The north-south runway would be located on the west side of the airport and is designated Runway 1W/19W for the purposes of this EIS, though it would be designated 1W/1W, while existing Runway 1L/19R would be re-designated Runway 1C/19C. The proposed east-west runway would be located on the south side of the airport and designated Runway 12R/30L, while existing Runway 12/30 would be re-designated Runway 12L/30R. The project would also include the construction of associated taxiways and nagivational aids for the proposed runways, property acquisition, Tier 3 Concourse development, relocation of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service Sterling facilities, and extension of the automated people mover. A No Action Alternative and six action alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, though only the No Action and two action alternatives are retained for detailed evaluation. Costs of the build alternatives are $1.49 billion and $1.51 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed improvements under the ALD would enable the airport to meet forecasted levels of aviation activity safely and efficiently. The new runways would reduce aircraft noise impacts related to airport operations. Optimal utilization of the IAD would be promoted. Operations during instrument meteorological conditions, including simultaneous operations on north-south and east-west runways, would be possible. The provision of redundant runways would reduce take-off and landing delays. Adequate passenger terminal and aircraft gate capacity would be provide to accommodate forecasted growth in aviation demand. IAD improvements would create over 18,000 jobs, and contribute $2.21 billion to $2.25 billion annually to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fifteen noise sensitive sites would lie within the area affected by noise levels equal to or exceeding 60 decibels on the A-weighted scale. Airport development would affect approximately 40 acres of prime farmland, 3,500 acres of biotic communities, including 174 to 180 acres of wetlands and 60,856 to 63,500 linear feet of stream. The new developments would encroach into 3 to 39 acres of floodplain land and would lie within a coastal zone management area. JF - EPA number: 050011, Volume 1--491 pages, Volume 2--631 pages, Volume 3--601 pages, Volume 4--167 pages, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Demography KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Virginia UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16359736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=NEW+RUNWAYS%2C+TERMINAL+FACILITIES%2C+AND+RELATED+RACILITIES+AT+WASHINGTON+DULLES+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+DULLES%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Dulles, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE DESIGNATION OF THE LA-3 OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE OFF NEWPORT BAY, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16345639; 11354 AB - PURPOSE: The final designation of the LA-3 ocean dredged material disposal site off Newport Bay in Orange County, California is proposed. The LA-3 site would be used in conjunction with the LA-2 site for the disposal of dredged material originating from projects located within Los Angeles and Orange counties. An overall average of 390,000 cubic yards per year of dredged material requiring ocean dumping is expected to be generated in the area. The LA-2 and LA-3 sites are located between Palos Verdes Point and Dana Point. More specifically, the LA-2 site is located five nautical miles southwest of the breakwater at San Pedro and 20.5 nautical miles from the Newport Harbor entrance. The LA-3 site is located on the slope of Newport Canyon 4.5 nautical miles southwest of the entrance to Newport Harbor. The interim LA-3 site has been used for ocean disposal of dredged material from Orange County projects, primarily projects within Newport Bay, since the 1970s. The LA-2 and LA-3 sites would be managed for maximum annual dredged material disposal quantities of 2.5 million cubic yards and 1.0 million cubic yards, respectively. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Maximum use of the LA-3 site (Alternative 3) as well as the LA-2 site is the preferred alternative. An impact, monitoring plan would be incorporated into the use of the site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Site designation would ensure that adequate, environmentally acceptable ocean disposal site capacity was available for suitable dredged material generated in the greater Los Angeles County/Orange County area in conjunction with other management options, including upland disposal and beneficial reuse of dredged material. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under worst-case conditions, air quality impacts during hauling of dredged material to the site could be significant, but these impacts could be mitigated through the individual dredging project, permitting process. Excepting air quality degradation, continued use of the LA-3 site is not anticipated to cause significant long-term adverse environmental impacts beyond the site boundaries. As indicated above, the site has been used for ocean disposal of dredged sediments since the 1770s and the benthic communities and sediments within the site have been altered by these ongoing activities. Benthos within the site would continue to be smothered by sediment disposal but the environmental impacts would not extend beyond site boundaries. Water quality impacts would be localized, short-term, and negligible. LA-2 site impacts, also considered in this EIS, would be similar to LA-3 site impacts. The alternative would shift the center of the LA-3 site approximately 1.3 nautical miles to the southeast of the interim LA-3 site to allow the site to encompass a region that is already disturbed by dredged material and located on a flat depositional plain that would be more amenable to monitoring via precision bathymetry. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050015, 304 pages and maps, January 13, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - Newport Bay KW - Pacific Ocean KW - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Section 103 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345639?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE+DESIGNATION+OF+THE+LA-3+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFF+NEWPORT+BAY%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SITE+DESIGNATION+OF+THE+LA-3+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+OFF+NEWPORT+BAY%2C+ORANGE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 13, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36385942; 11878-060008_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The upgrading of a multi-lane, urban arterial extending from Interstate 310 (I-310) in St. Charles Parish to the Earhart Expressway (Louisiana 3139) in Jefferson parish, Louisiana is proposed. The East-West Corridor, under consideration extends from I-310 to the central business district (CBD) of New Orleans, serves over 1.0 million residents of the New Orleans Metropolitan Area and River Parishes region, many of whom travel the corridor daily using the principal east-west highways. All these highway are affected daily by heavy congestion and travel delays. Projected population and economic growth will continue to degrade travel within the corridor. The corridor development project consists of two separate components, namely, a highway component and a transit component, with separate EIS processes being undertaken for each component. The transit component would extends from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport to the New Orleans CBD, with consideration currently given to light rail transit and bus rapid transit technologies. The corridor the highway component of the corridor development project, which is the subject of this EIS process. the proposed action would provide for the widening of thee existing facility and the elimination of signalized interjections. Most notably, the proposed alternative provides for additional traffic lanes and geometric improvements along Airline Drive and a new connector bridge structure providing a direct, free-flow connection between the Earhart Expressway western terminus and Airline Drive. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a transportation system management alternative. Cost of the proposed action is estimated at $246.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded highway would vastly improve access between the CBD and outlying areas and would compliment the proposed transit component within the corridor, providing a variety of options to travelers and combining to reduce congestion, noise levels, and air pollutant emissions in the area. Improvement of drainage features in association with highway construction would reduce flooding of the highway and adjoining areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the widening alternative would result in the displacement of 55 commercial units. In addition, 1.33 acres of wetlands, comprised mostly of swales and ditches, would be displaced. Bald eagle nests, which have been identified within or adjacent to the corridor, could be affected. Construction workers could encounter up to 12 hazardous waste sites within the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 060008, 376 pages and maps, January 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-06-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36385942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+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: January 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36378005; 11878-060008_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The upgrading of a multi-lane, urban arterial extending from Interstate 310 (I-310) in St. Charles Parish to the Earhart Expressway (Louisiana 3139) in Jefferson parish, Louisiana is proposed. The East-West Corridor, under consideration extends from I-310 to the central business district (CBD) of New Orleans, serves over 1.0 million residents of the New Orleans Metropolitan Area and River Parishes region, many of whom travel the corridor daily using the principal east-west highways. All these highway are affected daily by heavy congestion and travel delays. Projected population and economic growth will continue to degrade travel within the corridor. The corridor development project consists of two separate components, namely, a highway component and a transit component, with separate EIS processes being undertaken for each component. The transit component would extends from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport to the New Orleans CBD, with consideration currently given to light rail transit and bus rapid transit technologies. The corridor the highway component of the corridor development project, which is the subject of this EIS process. the proposed action would provide for the widening of thee existing facility and the elimination of signalized interjections. Most notably, the proposed alternative provides for additional traffic lanes and geometric improvements along Airline Drive and a new connector bridge structure providing a direct, free-flow connection between the Earhart Expressway western terminus and Airline Drive. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a transportation system management alternative. Cost of the proposed action is estimated at $246.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded highway would vastly improve access between the CBD and outlying areas and would compliment the proposed transit component within the corridor, providing a variety of options to travelers and combining to reduce congestion, noise levels, and air pollutant emissions in the area. Improvement of drainage features in association with highway construction would reduce flooding of the highway and adjoining areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the widening alternative would result in the displacement of 55 commercial units. In addition, 1.33 acres of wetlands, comprised mostly of swales and ditches, would be displaced. Bald eagle nests, which have been identified within or adjacent to the corridor, could be affected. Construction workers could encounter up to 12 hazardous waste sites within the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 060008, 376 pages and maps, January 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-06-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+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: January 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36375012; 11878-060008_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The upgrading of a multi-lane, urban arterial extending from Interstate 310 (I-310) in St. Charles Parish to the Earhart Expressway (Louisiana 3139) in Jefferson parish, Louisiana is proposed. The East-West Corridor, under consideration extends from I-310 to the central business district (CBD) of New Orleans, serves over 1.0 million residents of the New Orleans Metropolitan Area and River Parishes region, many of whom travel the corridor daily using the principal east-west highways. All these highway are affected daily by heavy congestion and travel delays. Projected population and economic growth will continue to degrade travel within the corridor. The corridor development project consists of two separate components, namely, a highway component and a transit component, with separate EIS processes being undertaken for each component. The transit component would extends from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport to the New Orleans CBD, with consideration currently given to light rail transit and bus rapid transit technologies. The corridor the highway component of the corridor development project, which is the subject of this EIS process. the proposed action would provide for the widening of thee existing facility and the elimination of signalized interjections. Most notably, the proposed alternative provides for additional traffic lanes and geometric improvements along Airline Drive and a new connector bridge structure providing a direct, free-flow connection between the Earhart Expressway western terminus and Airline Drive. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a transportation system management alternative. Cost of the proposed action is estimated at $246.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded highway would vastly improve access between the CBD and outlying areas and would compliment the proposed transit component within the corridor, providing a variety of options to travelers and combining to reduce congestion, noise levels, and air pollutant emissions in the area. Improvement of drainage features in association with highway construction would reduce flooding of the highway and adjoining areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the widening alternative would result in the displacement of 55 commercial units. In addition, 1.33 acres of wetlands, comprised mostly of swales and ditches, would be displaced. Bald eagle nests, which have been identified within or adjacent to the corridor, could be affected. Construction workers could encounter up to 12 hazardous waste sites within the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 060008, 376 pages and maps, January 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-06-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+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: January 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 36371227; 11878-060008_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The upgrading of a multi-lane, urban arterial extending from Interstate 310 (I-310) in St. Charles Parish to the Earhart Expressway (Louisiana 3139) in Jefferson parish, Louisiana is proposed. The East-West Corridor, under consideration extends from I-310 to the central business district (CBD) of New Orleans, serves over 1.0 million residents of the New Orleans Metropolitan Area and River Parishes region, many of whom travel the corridor daily using the principal east-west highways. All these highway are affected daily by heavy congestion and travel delays. Projected population and economic growth will continue to degrade travel within the corridor. The corridor development project consists of two separate components, namely, a highway component and a transit component, with separate EIS processes being undertaken for each component. The transit component would extends from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport to the New Orleans CBD, with consideration currently given to light rail transit and bus rapid transit technologies. The corridor the highway component of the corridor development project, which is the subject of this EIS process. the proposed action would provide for the widening of thee existing facility and the elimination of signalized interjections. Most notably, the proposed alternative provides for additional traffic lanes and geometric improvements along Airline Drive and a new connector bridge structure providing a direct, free-flow connection between the Earhart Expressway western terminus and Airline Drive. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a transportation system management alternative. Cost of the proposed action is estimated at $246.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded highway would vastly improve access between the CBD and outlying areas and would compliment the proposed transit component within the corridor, providing a variety of options to travelers and combining to reduce congestion, noise levels, and air pollutant emissions in the area. Improvement of drainage features in association with highway construction would reduce flooding of the highway and adjoining areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the widening alternative would result in the displacement of 55 commercial units. In addition, 1.33 acres of wetlands, comprised mostly of swales and ditches, would be displaced. Bald eagle nests, which have been identified within or adjacent to the corridor, could be affected. Construction workers could encounter up to 12 hazardous waste sites within the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 060008, 376 pages and maps, January 9, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-06-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+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: January 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST-WEST CORRIDOR HIGHWAY COMPONENT, I-310/AIRPORT TO CBD, JEFFERSON, ORLEANS, AND ST. CHARLES PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 16355556; 11878 AB - PURPOSE: The upgrading of a multi-lane, urban arterial extending from Interstate 310 (I-310) in St. Charles Parish to the Earhart Expressway (Louisiana 3139) in Jefferson parish, Louisiana is proposed. The East-West Corridor, under consideration extends from I-310 to the central business district (CBD) of New Orleans, serves over 1.0 million residents of the New Orleans Metropolitan Area and River Parishes region, many of whom travel the corridor daily using the principal east-west highways. All these highway are affected daily by heavy congestion and travel delays. Projected population and economic growth will continue to degrade travel within the corridor. The corridor development project consists of two separate components, namely, a highway component and a transit component, with separate EIS processes being undertaken for each component. The transit component would extends from Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport to the New Orleans CBD, with consideration currently given to light rail transit and bus rapid transit technologies. The corridor the highway component of the corridor development project, which is the subject of this EIS process. the proposed action would provide for the widening of thee existing facility and the elimination of signalized interjections. Most notably, the proposed alternative provides for additional traffic lanes and geometric improvements along Airline Drive and a new connector bridge structure providing a direct, free-flow connection between the Earhart Expressway western terminus and Airline Drive. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a transportation system management alternative. Cost of the proposed action is estimated at $246.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The upgraded highway would vastly improve access between the CBD and outlying areas and would compliment the proposed transit component within the corridor, providing a variety of options to travelers and combining to reduce congestion, noise levels, and air pollutant emissions in the area. Improvement of drainage features in association with highway construction would reduce flooding of the highway and adjoining areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the widening alternative would result in the displacement of 55 commercial units. In addition, 1.33 acres of wetlands, comprised mostly of swales and ditches, would be displaced. Bald eagle nests, which have been identified within or adjacent to the corridor, could be affected. Construction workers could encounter up to 12 hazardous waste sites within the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 060008, 376 pages and maps, January 9, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-05-06-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Louisiana KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=EAST-WEST+CORRIDOR+HIGHWAY+COMPONENT%2C+I-310%2FAIRPORT+TO+CBD%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+ORLEANS%2C+AND+ST.+CHARLES+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: January 9, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 7, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, AND ST CHARLES COUNTIES, JUST WEST OF ROUTE 189 (MILEPOST 174) TO LAKE ST. LOUIS BOULEVARD (MILEPOST 214), MISSOURI. AN - 36443216; 11346 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 70-mile section of Interstate 70 II-70) from just west of Route 19 to Lake St. Louis Boulevard in Montgomery, Warren, and St. Charles counties, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. Four conceptual corridors, including the existing corridor, were located in the central and eastern sections of the study corridor, and numerous alternatives were considered for 17 subsections identified during scoping. The preferred alternative would include 14 miles of widening to six lanes, 26 miles of widening o eight lanes, reconstruction of 13 interchanges, and relocation of the existing rest areas and weigh stations. Rights-of-way and construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $103.2 million and $671.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the partial acquisition of 488 properties and full acquisition of 111 properties, displacement of 55 residential and 43 commercial structures, and limitation of access to 46 businesses. Regarding natural resources, the project would displace 11.3 acres of floodplain land, 0.6 acre of regulatory floodway, 2.5 acres of wetlands, 0.8 acre of ponds, and 47,089 linear feet of rivers and streams. In addition, 14 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 671 sensitive receptor sites. Seven wells would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050007, 388 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36443216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+7%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+WARREN%2C+AND+ST+CHARLES+COUNTIES%2C+JUST+WEST+OF+ROUTE+189+%28MILEPOST+174%29+TO+LAKE+ST.+LOUIS+BOULEVARD+%28MILEPOST+214%29%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+7%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+WARREN%2C+AND+ST+CHARLES+COUNTIES%2C+JUST+WEST+OF+ROUTE+189+%28MILEPOST+174%29+TO+LAKE+ST.+LOUIS+BOULEVARD+%28MILEPOST+214%29%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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). [Part 5 of 9] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 36369132; 050411D-050006_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36369132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 7, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, AND ST CHARLES COUNTIES, JUST WEST OF ROUTE 189 (MILEPOST 174) TO LAKE ST. LOUIS BOULEVARD (MILEPOST 214), MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 7, MONTGOMERY, WARREN, AND ST CHARLES COUNTIES, JUST WEST OF ROUTE 189 (MILEPOST 174) TO LAKE ST. LOUIS BOULEVARD (MILEPOST 214), MISSOURI. AN - 36369128; 050412D-050007_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 70-mile section of Interstate 70 II-70) from just west of Route 19 to Lake St. Louis Boulevard in Montgomery, Warren, and St. Charles counties, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. Four conceptual corridors, including the existing corridor, were located in the central and eastern sections of the study corridor, and numerous alternatives were considered for 17 subsections identified during scoping. The preferred alternative would include 14 miles of widening to six lanes, 26 miles of widening o eight lanes, reconstruction of 13 interchanges, and relocation of the existing rest areas and weigh stations. Rights-of-way and construction costs of the preferred alternative are estimated at $103.2 million and $671.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the partial acquisition of 488 properties and full acquisition of 111 properties, displacement of 55 residential and 43 commercial structures, and limitation of access to 46 businesses. Regarding natural resources, the project would displace 11.3 acres of floodplain land, 0.6 acre of regulatory floodway, 2.5 acres of wetlands, 0.8 acre of ponds, and 47,089 linear feet of rivers and streams. In addition, 14 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 671 sensitive receptor sites. Seven wells would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050007, 388 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Missouri KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36369128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+7%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+WARREN%2C+AND+ST+CHARLES+COUNTIES%2C+JUST+WEST+OF+ROUTE+189+%28MILEPOST+174%29+TO+LAKE+ST.+LOUIS+BOULEVARD+%28MILEPOST+214%29%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+7%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+WARREN%2C+AND+ST+CHARLES+COUNTIES%2C+JUST+WEST+OF+ROUTE+189+%28MILEPOST+174%29+TO+LAKE+ST.+LOUIS+BOULEVARD+%28MILEPOST+214%29%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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). [Part 2 of 9] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 36367746; 050411D-050006_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36367746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). [Part 8 of 9] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 36367619; 050411D-050006_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36367619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). [Part 6 of 9] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 36367053; 050411D-050006_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36367053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). [Part 9 of 9] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 36365994; 050411D-050006_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36365994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). [Part 1 of 9] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 36365928; 050411D-050006_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36365928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). [Part 4 of 9] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 36365170; 050411D-050006_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36365170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). [Part 3 of 9] T2 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 36365116; 050411D-050006_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/36365116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 70 CORRIDOR, KANSAS CITY TO ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, MISSOURI: SECOND TIER EIS AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION: ROUTE BB TO EASTERN COLUMBIA, BOONE COUNTY, MISSOURI (SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NUMBER 4). AN - 16346962; 11345 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of an 18-mile segment of Interstate 70 (I-70) from just east of the Missouri Route BB interchange (Exit 115) to just east of the Missouri Route Z interchange (Exist 133) in Boone County, Missouri is proposed. A tiered approach has been taken to the improvement of I-70 in Missouri. A Tier 1 EIS examining a 200-mile section of I-70 was approved in December 2001. This draft EIS is a Tier 2 EIS. The section of I-70 considered in this EIS consists of a four-lane divided highway spanning the entire width of Boone County, with limited access control and including 10 interchanges. The preferred alternative would reconstruct I-70 within the existing corridor. The reconstructed highway would provide additional through lanes, redesigned interchanges, and other improvements to ensure that I-70 would meet the requirement so f an interstate highway. I-70 constitutes one of the most important freeways in the national interstate system, providing east-west transcontinental access across much of the United Stats. The facility traverses 250 miles within Missouri. Other than short reconstructed sections, the newest sections of I-70 are 39 years old. The segment of highway suffers from insufficient roadway capacity, a poor safety record, and inadequate design. The section has been divided into three subsections considered separately. The reconstructed highway would provide three through lanes in each direction and improved interchanges to ensure full control of access. Frontage roads would provide for local access, and noise barriers would be provided where necessary and feasible. Costs of rights-of-way and construction are estimated at $134.9 million and $469.6 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements to the I-70 corridor would be critical to providing a safe, efficient, and economically effective transportation network to meet traffic demands. The project would accommodate existing and future traffic volumes, increase the level of service, enhance safety and modal interconnections, ensure access management, and improve homeland security. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements totaling 397 acres would result in the displacement of 298 residences, 66 businesses, nine industrial establishments, 249 acres of agricultural land and forest, 11 acres of parks and other publicly owned parcels, five important community facilities and 15 acres of related lands, and 11 institutional facilities. With respect to the natural environment, the project would displace 8.3 acres of wetlands, 2.2 acres of ponds, 72 acres of floodplain, and 143 acres of natural communities. The highway would traverse 73 streams. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected. The Bowling Napier Estate, which is eligible for inclusion in the National register of Historic Places, would be affected. Construction workers would encounter 15 sites potentially containing hazardous materials. The ability to accommodate expansion of the freeway would be limited. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EIS addressing Tier 1 planning for I-70 improvements in Missouri, see 01-0449D, Volume 25, Number 4 and 02-0067F, Volume 26, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050006, 567 pages and maps, January 7, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-04-01-D KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Control KW - Parks KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES 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/16346962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+70+CORRIDOR%2C+KANSAS+CITY+TO+ST.+LOUIS%2C+MISSOURI%2C+MISSOURI%3A+SECOND+TIER+EIS+AND+SECTION+4%28F%29+EVALUATION%3A+ROUTE+BB+TO+EASTERN+COLUMBIA%2C+BOONE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NUMBER+4%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 7, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36417646; 11623 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of the native anadromous fisheries and ecosystem of the Elwha River, located in northwestern Washington, is proposed. Much of the 45-mile-long river flows through the Olympic National Park. In the early 1900s, the free-flowing Elwha River was blocked by two hydroelectric dams. In 1912, the Elwha Dam was built 4.9 miles from the mouth of the river, creating Lake Aldwell. In 1926, the Glines Canyon dam was built 8.5 miles further upstream, creating Lake Mills. The presence and operation of the dams blocked the migration path for several species of salmon and trout, which, after maturing in the ocean, return to Elwha to spawn, and the dams prevent the downstream flow of nutrients, sediment, and woody debris needed by the fish to spawn and rear juveniles. The fish were also important to the diet, culture, and economy of a local Indian tribe, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve the retention of the dams, were considered in the draft EIS of April 1996. The proposed action (the River Erosion Alternative) would involve fully restoring the river ecosystem and its fisheries by removing both dams over an 18- to 24-month period and implementing fish restoration, including a tribal hatchery, and revegetation. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond-wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The Dredge and Slurry Alternative would involve the use of suction dredges to remove fine-grained sediment prior to dam removal. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $113.1 million. The final EIS of November 1996, which was issued in an abbreviated format, contains corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This final supplement to the final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a slightly modified proposed action. This final supplement also updates cost information, describes the selected plan for the mitigation of damage to trumpeter swan habitat, and proposes crushing and recycling concrete removed from the dams rather than transporting it to a land disposal site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the project would fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem, return the cultural and economic focus of the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and promote the federal trust responsibility to affected Indian tribes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The deactivation of the dams would result in the loss of 18.7 megawatts of hydroelectric power now produced at these two sites. If sediment were allowed to erode naturally, the finer-grained particles, like silt and clay, could adversely affect fish or other aquatic organisms. Flood risks would increase following dam removal. LEGAL MANDATES: Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-495). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 05-0441D, Volume 29, Number 3. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0156D, Volume 20, Number 2, and 96-0591F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050352, 283 pages, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Hazards KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Reservoirs KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Subsistence KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Elwha River KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36417646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36368948; 050441D-050002_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of the native anadromous fisheries and ecosystem of the Elwha River, located in northwestern Washington, is proposed. Much of the 45-mile-long river flows through the Olympic National Park. In the early 1900s the free-flowing Elwha River was blocked by two hydroelectric dams. In 1912, the Elwha Dam was built 4.9 miles from the mouth of the river, creating Lake Aldwell. In 1926, the Glines Canyon dam was built 8.5 miles further upstream, creating Lake Mills. The presence and operation of the dams blocked the migration path for several species of salmon and trout, which, after maturing in the ocean, return to Elwha to spawn, and the dams prevent the downstream flow of nutrients, sediment, and woody debris needed by the fish to spawn and rear juveniles. The fish were also important to the diet, culture, and economy of a local Indian tribe, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve the retention of the dams, were considered in the draft EIS of April 1996. The proposed action (the River Erosion Alternative) would involve fully restoring the river ecosystem and its fisheries by removing both dams over an 18- to 24-month period and implementing fish restoration, including a tribal hatchery, and re-vegetation. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond-wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The Dredge and Slurry Alternative would involve the use of suction dredges to remove fine-grained sediment prior to dam removal. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $113.1 million. The final EIS, which was issued in an abbreviated format, contains corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This draft supplement considers a No Action Alternative and a slightly modified proposed action. This draft supplement also updates cost information, describes the selected plan for the mitigation of damage to trumpeter swan habitat, and proposes crushing and recycling concrete removed from the dams rather than transporting it to a land disposal site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the project would fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem, return the cultural and economic focus of the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and promote the federal trust responsibility to affected Indian tribes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The deactivation of the dams would result in the loss of 18.7 megawatts of hydroelectric power now produced at these two sites. If sediment were allowed to erode naturally, the finer-grained particles, like silt and clay, could adversely affect fish or other aquatic organisms. Flood risks would increase following dam removal. LEGAL MANDATES: Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-495). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0156D, Volume 20, Number 2, and 96-0591F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050002, 283 pages, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Hazards KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Reservoirs KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Subsistence KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Elwha River KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION IMPLEMENTATION, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK, CLALLAM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16343116; 11341 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of the native anadromous fisheries and ecosystem of the Elwha River, located in northwestern Washington, is proposed. Much of the 45-mile-long river flows through the Olympic National Park. In the early 1900s the free-flowing Elwha River was blocked by two hydroelectric dams. In 1912, the Elwha Dam was built 4.9 miles from the mouth of the river, creating Lake Aldwell. In 1926, the Glines Canyon dam was built 8.5 miles further upstream, creating Lake Mills. The presence and operation of the dams blocked the migration path for several species of salmon and trout, which, after maturing in the ocean, return to Elwha to spawn, and the dams prevent the downstream flow of nutrients, sediment, and woody debris needed by the fish to spawn and rear juveniles. The fish were also important to the diet, culture, and economy of a local Indian tribe, the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would involve the retention of the dams, were considered in the draft EIS of April 1996. The proposed action (the River Erosion Alternative) would involve fully restoring the river ecosystem and its fisheries by removing both dams over an 18- to 24-month period and implementing fish restoration, including a tribal hatchery, and re-vegetation. Elwha Dam would be removed by blasting, and Glines Canyon Dam by a combination of blasting and diamond-wire saw cutting. Lake Aldwell would be drained by a diversion channel, and Lake Mills by notching down Glines Canyon Dam. Stored sediment would be eroded naturally by the Elwha River. The Dredge and Slurry Alternative would involve the use of suction dredges to remove fine-grained sediment prior to dam removal. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $113.1 million. The final EIS, which was issued in an abbreviated format, contains corrections and revisions to the draft EIS as well as public comments and agency responses. This draft supplement considers a No Action Alternative and a slightly modified proposed action. This draft supplement also updates cost information, describes the selected plan for the mitigation of damage to trumpeter swan habitat, and proposes crushing and recycling concrete removed from the dams rather than transporting it to a land disposal site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, the project would fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem, return the cultural and economic focus of the Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, and promote the federal trust responsibility to affected Indian tribes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The deactivation of the dams would result in the loss of 18.7 megawatts of hydroelectric power now produced at these two sites. If sediment were allowed to erode naturally, the finer-grained particles, like silt and clay, could adversely affect fish or other aquatic organisms. Flood risks would increase following dam removal. LEGAL MANDATES: Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-495). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 96-0156D, Volume 20, Number 2, and 96-0591F, Volume 20, Number 6, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050002, 283 pages, January 5, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Hazards KW - Fish Hatcheries KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Reservoirs KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Control KW - Subsistence KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Elwha River KW - Olympic National Park KW - Washington KW - Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act of 1992, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ELWHA+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+IMPLEMENTATION%2C+OLYMPIC+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CLALLAM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Depth of closure on sandy coasts AN - 861983071; 2011-032936 JF - Encyclopedia of coastal science AU - Morang, Andrew AU - Birkemeier, William A A2 - Schwartz, Maurice L. A2 - Fairbridge, Rhodes W. A2 - Rampino, Michael R. Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - Springer, Dordrecht SN - 9781402035654; 1402035659; 1402019036; 9781402019036 KW - United States KW - erosion KW - nearshore sedimentation KW - Dare County North Carolina KW - Worcester County Maryland KW - beaches KW - sediments KW - storms KW - Maryland KW - Long Island KW - littoral erosion KW - sand KW - clastic sediments KW - statistical analysis KW - sedimentation KW - intertidal sedimentation KW - prediction KW - Duck North Carolina KW - mathematical models KW - dredged materials KW - models KW - North Carolina KW - coastal environment KW - Ocean City Maryland KW - erodibility KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/861983071?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=Morang%2C+Andrew%3BBirkemeier%2C+William+A&rft.aulast=Morang&rft.aufirst=Andrew&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781402035654&rft.btitle=Depth+of+closure+on+sandy+coasts&rft.title=Depth+of+closure+on+sandy+coasts&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 14 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Beach profile AN - 861982100; 2011-032871 JF - Encyclopedia of coastal science AU - Kraus, Nicholas C A2 - Schwartz, Maurice L. A2 - Fairbridge, Rhodes W. A2 - Rampino, Michael R. Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - Springer, Dordrecht SN - 9781402035654; 1402035659; 1402019036; 9781402019036 KW - sand KW - shore features KW - accretion KW - surf zones KW - offshore KW - clastic sediments KW - sedimentation KW - bars KW - troughs KW - measurement KW - tides KW - beaches KW - sediments KW - beach profiles KW - seasonal variations KW - storm surges KW - erodibility KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/861982100?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=Kraus%2C+Nicholas+C&rft.aulast=Kraus&rft.aufirst=Nicholas&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=9781402035654&rft.btitle=Beach+profile&rft.title=Beach+profile&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 13 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Tracer experiments on field scale for parameter estimation to calibrate numerical transport models AN - 51612463; 2006-027896 JF - International workshop on Saturated and unsaturated zone; integration of process knowledge into effective models; COST Action 629, working groups 3 and 4 AU - Fank, J AU - Rock, G AU - Nuetzmann, Gunnar AU - Viotti, Paolo AU - Aagaard, Per Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - Springer, New York, NY SN - 3540267441 KW - Wagna test site KW - halogens KW - bromide ion KW - Europe KW - ground water KW - finite element analysis KW - transport KW - Central Europe KW - tracers KW - mobility KW - lysimeters KW - experimental studies KW - numerical models KW - three-dimensional models KW - injection KW - pollution KW - potentiometric surface KW - Murtal River basin KW - Austria KW - bromine KW - two-dimensional models KW - aquifers KW - water table KW - recharge KW - detection KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51612463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=conference&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Fank%2C+J%3BRock%2C+G%3BNuetzmann%2C+Gunnar%3BViotti%2C+Paolo%3BAagaard%2C+Per&rft.aulast=Fank&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=3540267441&rft.btitle=Tracer+experiments+on+field+scale+for+parameter+estimation+to+calibrate+numerical+transport+models&rft.title=Tracer+experiments+on+field+scale+for+parameter+estimation+to+calibrate+numerical+transport+models&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - International workshop on Saturated and unsaturated zone; integration of process knowledge into effective models; COST Action 629, working groups 3 and 4 N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 4 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Coastal impacts and processes during Hurricane Ivan AN - 51441146; 2007-049017 AB - In September 2004, Category-3 Hurricane Ivan extensively impacted the coasts of Alabama and the Panhandle of Florida. Before and after landfall, the open-coast beaches in the impact zone were surveyed with airborne Light Detection And Ranging (lidar) in a cooperative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and Corps of Engineers. The data show extensive beach and dune changes as well as the opening of new inlets through barrier islands. Specifically, the average shoreline change within the impact zone was approximately 15 m of erosion. Near the location of landfall, the storm surge, which approached 3 m, completely submerged the low-lying barrier islands. Here, the system was in the inundation regime where the sea-level gradient between Gulf and back bay drove a strong landward current that transported sand across the island and into the back bay. In contrast, ten kilometers to the east in Orange Beach, Alabama, the topography was higher and the response of the system was a collision regime, resulting in dune erosion that, in places, exceeded 20 m. Locally, the vertical scour was greater than 3 m and undermined structures including several five-story condominium towers that had been built on top of dunes. In general, wave run-up was not sufficient in the Orange Beach area to overtop the dunes. Hurricane Ivan was likely the most significant coastal-change event in the southeast United States since Hurricane Hugo impacted the South Carolina coast in 1989. JF - Transactions - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies AU - Sallenger, Asbury AU - Wright, C Wayne AU - Lillycrop, Jeff A2 - Ledet, Michael A2 - Klekamp, Tom A2 - Hammes, Ursula Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 733 PB - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, New Orleans, LA VL - 55 SN - 0533-6562, 0533-6562 KW - United States KW - Hurricane Ivan KW - eolian features KW - dunes KW - laser methods KW - geophysical surveys KW - geologic hazards KW - erosion KW - Florida KW - Alabama KW - inlets KW - beaches KW - coastal dunes KW - storm surges KW - barrier islands KW - shore features KW - sediment transport KW - damage KW - shorelines KW - radar methods KW - water erosion KW - Gulf Coastal Plain KW - lidar methods KW - Florida Panhandle KW - surveys KW - hurricanes KW - airborne methods KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51441146?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=Transactions+-+Gulf+Coast+Association+of+Geological+Societies&rft.atitle=Coastal+impacts+and+processes+during+Hurricane+Ivan&rft.au=Sallenger%2C+Asbury%3BWright%2C+C+Wayne%3BLillycrop%2C+Jeff&rft.aulast=Sallenger&rft.aufirst=Asbury&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=&rft.spage=733&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transactions+-+Gulf+Coast+Association+of+Geological+Societies&rft.issn=05336562&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 55th annual convention of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, American Association of Petroleum Geologists regional meeting and the 52nd annual meeting of the Gulf Coast Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - PubXState - LA N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - TGCGA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - airborne methods; Alabama; barrier islands; beaches; coastal dunes; damage; dunes; eolian features; erosion; Florida; Florida Panhandle; geologic hazards; geophysical surveys; Gulf Coastal Plain; Hurricane Ivan; hurricanes; inlets; laser methods; lidar methods; radar methods; sediment transport; shore features; shorelines; storm surges; surveys; United States; water erosion ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrogeologic investigation of leakage through sinkholes in the bed of Lake Seminole to springs located downstream from Jim Woodruff Dam AN - 51104341; 2007-070674 JF - Geotechnical Special Publication AU - Crawford, Nicholas C AU - Poiroux, Duane B AU - Sanders, James H A2 - Beck, Barry F. Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 489 EP - 499 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY VL - 144 SN - 0895-0563, 0895-0563 KW - United States KW - limestone KW - Suwanee Limestone KW - Tampa Limestone KW - Florida KW - Alabama KW - Cenozoic KW - sedimentary rocks KW - tracers KW - springs KW - Lake Seminole KW - confined aquifers KW - Paleogene KW - Miocene KW - aquifers KW - Apalachicola River KW - Tertiary KW - Neogene KW - sinkholes KW - Georgia KW - Floridan Aquifer KW - carbonate rocks KW - solution features KW - Oligocene KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51104341?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=Geotechnical+Special+Publication&rft.atitle=Hydrogeologic+investigation+of+leakage+through+sinkholes+in+the+bed+of+Lake+Seminole+to+springs+located+downstream+from+Jim+Woodruff+Dam&rft.au=Crawford%2C+Nicholas+C%3BPoiroux%2C+Duane+B%3BSanders%2C+James+H&rft.aulast=Crawford&rft.aufirst=Nicholas&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=144&rft.issue=&rft.spage=489&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geotechnical+Special+Publication&rft.issn=08950563&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F40796%28177%2952 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Tenth multidisciplinary conference on Sinkholes and the engineering and environmental impacts of karst N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 11 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alabama; Apalachicola River; aquifers; carbonate rocks; Cenozoic; confined aquifers; Florida; Floridan Aquifer; Georgia; Lake Seminole; limestone; Miocene; Neogene; Oligocene; Paleogene; sedimentary rocks; sinkholes; solution features; springs; Suwanee Limestone; Tampa Limestone; Tertiary; tracers; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40796(177)52 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Wave height from planing and semi-planing small boats AN - 50883088; 2005-032727 AB - The increasing number of small boats has raised concerns about their effects on the environment, particularly their waves. Bank erosion is one of the foremost concerns of boat waves but disruption of habitat, resuspension of bottom sediments, and damage to aquatic plants are other areas of concern. A large programme of field measurement of boat waves was conducted on Johnson Lake in Alaska to evaluate boats typically used on the Kenai River. The boat wave study compared wave characteristics of four boats under a variety of loadings, speeds, distances and motor powers. Over 400 tests were run on Johnson Lake with each test providing wave measurement at four locations. Two measures of waves and two types of tests were used in the study. MAXPOW was the wave height at the maximum power of the motor. MAXWAV was the maximum wave height produced by the boat which required runs at a range of speeds to determine the MAXWAV. While the MAXWAV data herein have considerable scatter in magnitude, the conditions at which MAXWAV occurs are consistent from boat to boat. To prevent generation of maximum wave heights, small boats should operate as far as possible either above or below length Froude number of 0.6, displacement Froude number of 1.3, or beam Froude number of 1.0. A general boat wave height equation was developed for the four boats based on boat speed, volume displaced by the boat and distance from the boat, and are applicable to semi-planing and planing boats based on MAXPOW and MAXWAV data. The predictive equation for V-hull boats was compared to independent data not used in the development and was found to be in agreement with the data. The predictive equation is limited to depth/boat length greater than 0.35. Published in 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Abstract Copyright (2005), Wiley Periodicals, Inc. JF - River Research and Applications AU - Maynord, Stephen T Y1 - 2005/01// PY - 2005 DA - January 2005 SP - 1 EP - 17 PB - Wiley, Chichester VL - 21 IS - 1 SN - 1535-1459, 1535-1459 KW - United States KW - erosion KW - suspended materials KW - environmental effects KW - environmental management KW - sediments KW - ecology KW - Kenai River KW - littoral erosion KW - shore features KW - numerical models KW - Johnson Lake KW - waves KW - human activity KW - water erosion KW - Southern Alaska KW - models KW - case studies KW - Kenai Peninsula KW - navigation KW - coastal environment KW - Alaska KW - erodibility KW - aquatic environment KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50883088?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=River+Research+and+Applications&rft.atitle=Wave+height+from+planing+and+semi-planing+small+boats&rft.au=Maynord%2C+Stephen+T&rft.aulast=Maynord&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=River+Research+and+Applications&rft.issn=15351459&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Frra.803 L2 - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/90010544 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United Kingdom N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 18 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; aquatic environment; case studies; coastal environment; ecology; environmental effects; environmental management; erodibility; erosion; human activity; Johnson Lake; Kenai Peninsula; Kenai River; littoral erosion; models; navigation; numerical models; sediments; shore features; Southern Alaska; suspended materials; United States; water erosion; waves DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.803 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Multi-criteria decision analysis; a framework for managing contaminated sediments AN - 50879830; 2006-008999 JF - NATO Science Series. Series IV, Earth and Environmental Sciences AU - Linkov, Igor AU - Sahay, S AU - Kiker, G AU - Bridges, T AU - Seager, T P A2 - Levner, Eugene A2 - Linkov, Igor A2 - Proth, Jean-Marie Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 271 EP - 297 PB - Springer, Dordrecht VL - 50 SN - 1568-1238, 1568-1238 KW - United States KW - U. S. Department of Energy KW - legislation KW - government agencies KW - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency KW - pollution KW - Europe KW - ecosystems KW - decision-making KW - rivers KW - education KW - research KW - remediation KW - environmental management KW - marine sediments KW - sediments KW - fluvial features KW - drainage basins KW - risk assessment KW - ecology KW - ocean floors KW - discharge KW - world ocean KW - 07:Oceanography KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50879830?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=NATO+Science+Series.+Series+IV%2C+Earth+and+Environmental+Sciences&rft.atitle=Multi-criteria+decision+analysis%3B+a+framework+for+managing+contaminated+sediments&rft.au=Linkov%2C+Igor%3BSahay%2C+S%3BKiker%2C+G%3BBridges%2C+T%3BSeager%2C+T+P&rft.aulast=Linkov&rft.aufirst=Igor&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=&rft.spage=271&rft.isbn=1402031572&rft.btitle=&rft.title=NATO+Science+Series.+Series+IV%2C+Earth+and+Environmental+Sciences&rft.issn=15681238&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - NATO advanced study institute on Strategic management of marine ecosystems N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 74 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - decision-making; discharge; drainage basins; ecology; ecosystems; education; environmental management; Europe; fluvial features; government agencies; legislation; marine sediments; ocean floors; pollution; remediation; research; risk assessment; rivers; sediments; U. S. Department of Energy; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; United States; world ocean ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Towards using comparative risk assessment to manage contaminated sediments AN - 50878114; 2006-008998 JF - NATO Science Series. Series IV, Earth and Environmental Sciences AU - Bridges, T AU - Kiker, G AU - Cura, J AU - Apul, D AU - Linkov, Igor A2 - Levner, Eugene A2 - Linkov, Igor A2 - Proth, Jean-Marie Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 261 EP - 269 PB - Springer, Dordrecht VL - 50 SN - 1568-1238, 1568-1238 KW - environmental management KW - marine sediments KW - planning KW - sediments KW - pollution KW - risk assessment KW - ecosystems KW - ecology KW - decision-making KW - waste disposal KW - ocean floors KW - 07:Oceanography KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50878114?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=NATO+Science+Series.+Series+IV%2C+Earth+and+Environmental+Sciences&rft.atitle=Towards+using+comparative+risk+assessment+to+manage+contaminated+sediments&rft.au=Bridges%2C+T%3BKiker%2C+G%3BCura%2C+J%3BApul%2C+D%3BLinkov%2C+Igor&rft.aulast=Bridges&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=&rft.spage=261&rft.isbn=1402031572&rft.btitle=&rft.title=NATO+Science+Series.+Series+IV%2C+Earth+and+Environmental+Sciences&rft.issn=15681238&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - NATO advanced study institute on Strategic management of marine ecosystems N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 16 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - decision-making; ecology; ecosystems; environmental management; marine sediments; ocean floors; planning; pollution; risk assessment; sediments; waste disposal ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Borehole tomography and surface 3D radar for coal mine subsidence detection AN - 50257391; 2008-088925 AB - Experimental cross-hole and surface-penetrating radar surveys were conducted along a section of highway that had collapsed into underground coal mine workings. The cross-hole radar method provided information about bedrock and overburden conditions at depths not attainable using surface radar, while the surface radar enabled a detailed analysis of the roadway conditions. Through coincident analyses of borehole tomograms and surface three-dimensional plots, additional locations along the highway where mine-related disruption has occurred, and where a relatively high potential for future collapse exists, were detected. The results of this study demonstrate the applicability of radar methods to mine-related subsidence problems, and show that a more complete characterization can be achieved by employing both borehole and surface radar methods. JF - The = Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering AU - Conroy, James P AU - Guy, Erich D Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 EP - unpaginated PB - Mete Oner, Stillwater, OK VL - 10 IS - Bundle F KW - United States KW - tomography KW - mining KW - mines KW - overburden KW - geophysical surveys KW - geologic hazards KW - underground mining KW - data acquisition KW - crosshole methods KW - data processing KW - coal mines KW - radar methods KW - grouting KW - land subsidence KW - areal geology KW - remediation KW - boreholes KW - mining geology KW - Guernsey County Ohio KW - surveys KW - roads KW - Ohio KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50257391?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=The+%3D+Electronic+Journal+of+Geotechnical+Engineering&rft.atitle=Borehole+tomography+and+surface+3D+radar+for+coal+mine+subsidence+detection&rft.au=Conroy%2C+James+P%3BGuy%2C+Erich+D&rft.aulast=Conroy&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=Bundle+F&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+%3D+Electronic+Journal+of+Geotechnical+Engineering&rft.issn=1089-3032&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.ejge.com/2005/Ppr0589/Ppr0589.htm http://www.ejge.com/Index_ejge.htm LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 15 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - areal geology; boreholes; coal mines; crosshole methods; data acquisition; data processing; geologic hazards; geophysical surveys; grouting; Guernsey County Ohio; land subsidence; mines; mining; mining geology; Ohio; overburden; radar methods; remediation; roads; surveys; tomography; underground mining; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT. AN - 36444821; 11716 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 final 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. Construction activities would occur between 2010 and 2013. 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 infrastructure, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0493D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050430, Volume 1--243 pages, Volume 2--663 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments 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/36444821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=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 - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL AT CHARLESTON NAVAL COMPLEX, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 36438982; 11721 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a marine container terminal at the Charleston Naval Complex, North Charleston, South Carolina are proposed. A recently updated forecast of container cargo throughput for the naval complex would grow from 1.65 million TEU (one TEU is equivalent to one standard 20-foot shipping container) in 2004 to 4.0 million TEU in 2025. Moreover, new facilities are necessary to accommodate the recently developed post-Panamax class of cargo ships. Estimates indicate that the nine berths at the three existing complex terminals have a maximum annual capacity of 2.6 million TEU. Under the proposal, the applicant, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, would develop 13.6 acres of wharf structure on the west side of Cooper River, with a berthing area 50 feet deep and 150 feet wide. The wharf would be include with six container cranes with a minimum outreach of 200 feet. The wharf would include three berths with an overall length of 3,510 linear feet. The applicant would also develop 203.4 acres of light paved area for container processing and storage upland of the wharf and 40 acres of paved area and buildings for support gate structures and other operations and facilities; improve Tidewater Road to create a new road that would provide access to the Cooper River Marina, which is owned and operated by the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission; develop 25 acres of storm water management facilities at the project site, focused on a storm water treatment pond along the south side of the terminal; dredging of a turning basin of at least 1,500 feet by 1,500 feet at a depth of 50 feet below mean low water; and construction of an independent access road to the site of the terminal. In addition to the proposed development, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would not require federal permit authorization, terminal site alternatives, and access road alignment alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would help provide for state-owned port facilities that meet the reasonably projected throughput capacity for containerized cargo in the state of South Carolina for the next 20 years. Development of the proposed project would probably spur ancillary commercial and industrial development within the region; it would be likely that such development would occur in appropriately zoned areas. Maritime support industries would be most likely to located in the Port Overlay District established by the city of North Charleston for such purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Terminal development would transform a site that is largely undeveloped and natural to a site containing heavy industrial uses; however, this impact would be in keeping with the current zoning and planned redevelopment of the naval complex. Approximately 208 acres of relatively undeveloped upland would be converted from institutional to industrial use. In addition, approximately 65 acres of marsh and open water would be filled and converted to industrial use. Nonmaritime uses in the Port Overlay District could experience pressure to relocate from parties interested in maritime support services. Commercial and some residential property would be acquired and displaced due to access road rights-of-way development. The project would affect two Cold War-era properties at the naval complex (buildings 643 and 686), but these are not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Visual aesthetics from a downstream recreational marine would be degraded somewhat. Shoreline processes and floodplain capacity would be negatively affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050438, Volume 1--786 pages, Volume 2, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Shores KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Charleston Naval Complex KW - South Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARINE+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+AT+CHARLESTON+NAVAL+COMPLEX%2C+CHARLESTON%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARINE+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+AT+CHARLESTON+NAVAL+COMPLEX%2C+CHARLESTON%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Charleston, South Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. 411 CONNECTOR, BARTOW COUNTY, GEORGIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT) AN - 36438566; 11717 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of five to seven miles of fully access controlled, four-lane highway, to be known as the US 411 Connector, in Bartow County, Georgia is proposed. The study corridor extends from the US 411/US 41 interchange on the west to the Interstate 75 (I-75) interchange on the east. In addition to a No Action Alternative and two transportation system management alternatives, this draft supplemental EIS considers 4 build alternatives. Alternative A would widen the existing facilities to six lanes and construction of a bypass of the existing State Route (SR) 61/US 41 interchange. Alternative AB would provide a new US 411 to I-75 connection by constructing a freeway along the existing SR 3/US 41 alignment with frontage roads for local access, construction of a bypss of the SR 61/US 41 interchange, and construction of a freeway along a new alignment east of SR 61/US 411 that would connect to I-75 at the existing SR 20/I-75 interchange. Alternative B would provide a new US 411/I-75 connection by constructing a freeway along a new alignment between the US 411/US 41 interchange and the SR 20/I-75 interchange. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a new US 411/I-75 connection by constructing a freeway along a new alignment between the US 411/US 41 interchange and SR 20 east of I-75, with a new interchange at I-75. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would improve the linkage between the US 411/SR 20 corridor and the interstate system by providing a more direct connection between US 411 at its interchange with US 1/SR 3 west of Cartersville and I-75. A more direct connection to I-75 would be provided from Bartow County as well as Floyd County and westward into Alabama. Regional through traffic would be separated from local traffic along the existing connection (US 411.US 41 and SR 20), substantially improving the safety and convenience of local access and circulation by reducing congestion in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 15 to 52 residential units and five to 22 businesses. In addition, the project would require seven to 36 acres of fill in the 100-year floodplains of three to five streams, and displace 0.12 to 5.77 acres of wetlands, as well as possibly affecting on one historic resource and up to two archeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 23 to 68 sensitive receptor sites. Two alternatives would result in socioeconomic impacts that disproportionate affect low-income or minority populations. The preferred alternative would displace 23 residential units and five businesses, 5.02 acres of wetlands, 36 acres of floodplain and 3,353 linear feet of stream, and two cultural resource sites. Traffic-generated noise impacts under the preferred alternative would affect 18 residences and five businesses. Community cohesion would be disrupted directly in three areas and indirectly in two others, but disadvantaged and minority populations would not be affected disproportionately. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050432, 549 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438566?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+411+CONNECTOR%2C+BARTOW+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29&rft.title=U.S.+411+CONNECTOR%2C+BARTOW+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Augusta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD NORTH OF RRANKLIN, FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMETNAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2004). AN - 36437479; 11743 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight- to 10-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. The facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity thought the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mark Thatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of November 2004. This draft supplement to the draft EIS addresses an additional build alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. The highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0327F, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050375, 54 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-SD KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+RRANKLIN%2C+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMETNAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+RRANKLIN%2C+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMETNAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOWARD BEND FLOODPLAIN, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 36435393; 11698 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a special area management plan (SAMP) for the Howard Bend floodplain of St. Louis County, Missouri is proposed. The 8,624-acre study area lies in the floodplain of the Missouri River, extending from the low bank of the Missouri River to the base of the surrounding bluff line and from River Mile (RM) 38.4 at the mouth of Bonhomme Creek upstream to the Interstate 70 Blanchette Memorial Bridge at RM 29. The boundaries fall within the city limits of Maryland Heights, with a small portion located in the city of Chesterfield. Most of the area is occupied by farmland, but numerous developments also lie within its boundaries. As of this date, 31 separate actions have been undertaken in the study area based on permits issued under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also known as the Clean Water Act) and Section 10 of the River And Harbor Act of 1899. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The No Action would involve continuing to review projects within the floodplain on a case-by-case basis. The proposed SAMP alternative would provide guidance and regulatory and administrative requirements for managing wetland and surface water resources in the Howard Bend floodplain. Permitting for projects that could potentially impact these resources would be covered under the provisions of a general permit in a manner consistent with the SAMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SAMP would provide a more cohesive approach with respect to the conversion of waters of the United States as well as the mitigation of unavoidable adverse impacts. The SMAP would allow developers to plan with a higher level of predictability and assure resource agencies and other interested parties that individual and cumulative environmental impacts would be analyzed in the context of ecosystem needs. The permitting process would be streamlined significantly. Wetland preserves would expand from 153 acres fo 483 acres, extending protection afforded to important fish and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. Water quality would be enhanced as well. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Flood control and other projects in the area would require the dredging and filling of wetlands and result in the alteration of the hydrological regime in some areas and, to some extent, within the floodplain as a whole. Certain areas would be rendered unavailable for future development, spmewhat limiting economic growth potential in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0473D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050373, 480 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Dikes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Land Management KW - Preserves KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River 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/36435393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOWARD+BEND+FLOODPLAIN%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=HOWARD+BEND+FLOODPLAIN%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNEL, HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA. AN - 36432945; 11702 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Management Area (CIDMMA) and development of a container terminal at the site in Norfolk Harbor of Hampton Roads between the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia are proposed. The project would extend the CIDMMA by 580 acres to the east of the current east end of the island site. The CIDMMA is a federally owned and operated dredged material placement area open for public and private dredged material disposal from projects within the Norfolk Harbor and adjacent water. The site has been in continuous use since 1957, when it was expected to have a useful life of 20 years, with a capacity of 96 million cubic yards. At the end of federal fiscal year 2004, the CIDMMA holds over 225 million cubic yards of dredged material deposits; this has occurred with the additional of dredged material placement capacity. The facility is projected to reach the end of its useful life in 2025. The proposed expansion site, which is also the tentatively recommended alternative, lies between the CIDMMA and the Craney Island reach of the federal navigation channel in the Elizabeth River. Following the expiration of the useful life of the expanded CIDMMA, the site would be converted into a container terminal complex, including an access channel, berths, wharves, container yards, cranes, gate facilities, intermodal yards, new access roads and ramps, a new rail track, cargo processing and support facilities, and storm water management areas. In addition to the proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative within the existing site, and alternative expansion sites. Cost of the project, which would be implemented in four phases, is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CIDMMA expansion would extend the life of the site, allowing the safe disposal of contaminated and non-contaminated sediments dredged from the harbor and related waters. Hence, the useful life of the site would be extended far beyond its current 2025 closure date. In addition, and site would provide new acreage for long-term berthing and landside port facilities and, possibly, serve as a logistical and tactical area supporting deployment of natural defense forces. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion of thee CIDMMA as proposed would result i the loss of 580 acres of marine bottom and open-water habitat to provide for a new dredged material placement cell, including a main dike and perimeter dikes. Wetland habitat would also be affected. Dredging and disposal cell and terminal facilities construction would result in the short-term release of sediment and organic material into the water column. The presence of the terminal would increase ship traffic in the harbor and Hampton Roads, increasing the potential for vessel collisions and other accidents. Emissions from the terminal facility would violate federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050385, 511 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Hampton Roads KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36432945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CRANEY+ISLAND+EASTWARD+EXPANSION%2C+NORFOLK+HARBOR+AND+CHANNEL%2C+HAMPTON+ROADS%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CRANEY+ISLAND+EASTWARD+EXPANSION%2C+NORFOLK+HARBOR+AND+CHANNEL%2C+HAMPTON+ROADS%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36383250; 050131F-050412_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would e relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. The draft supplement of January 2005 to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. This final EIS continues to propose widening of US 6 from I-15 to I-70 via one of the two aforementioned action alternatives, while considering a No Action Alternative for comparison purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres {4-41} of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste sites . LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 05-0228D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0418D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050412, 573 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOWARD BEND FLOODPLAIN, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - HOWARD BEND FLOODPLAIN, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 36382064; 050120F-050373_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a special area management plan (SAMP) for the Howard Bend floodplain of St. Louis County, Missouri is proposed. The 8,624-acre study area lies in the floodplain of the Missouri River, extending from the low bank of the Missouri River to the base of the surrounding bluff line and from River Mile (RM) 38.4 at the mouth of Bonhomme Creek upstream to the Interstate 70 Blanchette Memorial Bridge at RM 29. The boundaries fall within the city limits of Maryland Heights, with a small portion located in the city of Chesterfield. Most of the area is occupied by farmland, but numerous developments also lie within its boundaries. As of this date, 31 separate actions have been undertaken in the study area based on permits issued under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (also known as the Clean Water Act) and Section 10 of the River And Harbor Act of 1899. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The No Action would involve continuing to review projects within the floodplain on a case-by-case basis. The proposed SAMP alternative would provide guidance and regulatory and administrative requirements for managing wetland and surface water resources in the Howard Bend floodplain. Permitting for projects that could potentially impact these resources would be covered under the provisions of a general permit in a manner consistent with the SAMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SAMP would provide a more cohesive approach with respect to the conversion of waters of the United States as well as the mitigation of unavoidable adverse impacts. The SMAP would allow developers to plan with a higher level of predictability and assure resource agencies and other interested parties that individual and cumulative environmental impacts would be analyzed in the context of ecosystem needs. The permitting process would be streamlined significantly. Wetland preserves would expand from 153 acres fo 483 acres, extending protection afforded to important fish and wildlife habitat, including habitat for federally protected species. Water quality would be enhanced as well. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Flood control and other projects in the area would require the dredging and filling of wetlands and result in the alteration of the hydrological regime in some areas and, to some extent, within the floodplain as a whole. Certain areas would be rendered unavailable for future development, spmewhat limiting economic growth potential in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0473D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050373, 480 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Dikes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Land Management KW - Preserves KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Missouri KW - Missouri River 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/36382064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOWARD+BEND+FLOODPLAIN%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=HOWARD+BEND+FLOODPLAIN%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FAYETTEVILLE OUTER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY, CUMBERLAND, HOKE, AND ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA (FEDERAL AID NO. DPR-0100(001) AND DPR-0100(002); NCDOT PROJECT no. 8.2441301 AND 8.T441302; T.I.P. I.D. NO. U-2519 AND X-2). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - FAYETTEVILLE OUTER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY, CUMBERLAND, HOKE, AND ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA (FEDERAL AID NO. DPR-0100(001) AND DPR-0100(002); NCDOT PROJECT no. 8.2441301 AND 8.T441302; T.I.P. I.D. NO. U-2519 AND X-2). AN - 36381742; 050040D-050380_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multi-lane freeway, to be known as the Fayetteville Outer Loop, around a portion of the City of Fayetteville in Cumberland, Hoke, and Robeson counties, North Carolina is proposed. The 27-mile project would extend from an interchange with Interstate 95 (I-95) in Robeson County, continue north through Cumberland and Hoke counties, turn eastward along the southern boundary of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation, and end just west of Ramsey Street (U.S. 401). The facility would be a four-lane, divided freeway, with full access control. Grade separations or interchanges would be constructed at selected public crossroads. Design elements would include a minimum right-of-way of 350 feet, a depressed median width of either 70 feet or 46 feet, and a collector/distributor roadway system between the All American Freeway (State Route 1007) and Bragg Boulevard (North Carolina 24). The project would be executed via six separate construction projects over right-of-way acquisition for the entire project continuing over a period of four years. In conjunction with I-95, the Fayetteville Outer Loop would complete a circumferential freeway around the city of Fayetteville. In addition to the build alternatives, this final EIS considers a Mass Transit Alternative, Transportation Systems Management Alternative, an alternative involving improvement of existing facilities, and a No-Build Alternative. Thirteen build alignment alternatives are considered in the draft EIS of March 1999. Estimated overall project implementation construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs of the build alternatives range from $350.5 million to $381.9 million. A preferred alternative have been selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Accessibility in the Fayetteville area and the Fort Bragg Military Reservation would improve significantly, easing passenger movement and boosting the local economy. The facility would provide direct access to I-95 and reduce congestion on many existing roads. Construction of the freeway would fulfill the goals of the Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition and development would result in displacement of 224 to 326 residents, five to six businesses, three to four non-profit organizations, 163 to 455.3 acres of farmland, and 145 to 195.2 acres of riparian wetlands. The alignment would traverse 47.6 to 70.9 acres of floodplain land, affecting 26,305 to 32,715 feet of stream channel. Noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 323 to 459 residential receptor sites. Five of the alternatives would affect a National Wildlife Refuge System wetland conservation easement held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and eight alternatives would affect the Shaw-Gillis property, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Between 19 and 24 hazardous material sites would be located within or near the alignment. The project could affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, a protected species. 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 99-0380D, Volume 23, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050380, Draft EIS--483 pages and maps, Draft Re-evaluation--34 pages, Final EIS--380 pages and maps, 2--5 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-99-EIS-99-01-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Wetlands 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/36381742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FAYETTEVILLE+OUTER+LOOP+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CUMBERLAND%2C+HOKE%2C+AND+ROBESON+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28FEDERAL+AID+NO.+DPR-0100%28001%29+AND+DPR-0100%28002%29%3B+NCDOT+PROJECT+no.+8.2441301+AND+8.T441302%3B+T.I.P.+I.D.+NO.+U-2519+AND+X-2%29.&rft.title=FAYETTEVILLE+OUTER+LOOP+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CUMBERLAND%2C+HOKE%2C+AND+ROBESON+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28FEDERAL+AID+NO.+DPR-0100%28001%29+AND+DPR-0100%28002%29%3B+NCDOT+PROJECT+no.+8.2441301+AND+8.T441302%3B+T.I.P.+I.D.+NO.+U-2519+AND+X-2%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2--5 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAN WATER COALITION SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM, LAKE MEAD RECREATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CLEAN WATER COALITION SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM, LAKE MEAD RECREATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 36381142; 050050D-050405_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Clean Water Coalition (CWC) Systems Conveyance and Operations Program (SCOP) for the Lake Meade Recreational Area of Boulder County, Nevada is proposed. The quantity of effluent treated and discharged in the Las Vegas Valley (Valley) will increase as the population of the Valley increases. Forecasts indicate that a combined maximum month flow of approximately 453 million gallons per day (mgd) of municipal wastewater will need to be treated and managed in the Las Vegas Valley by 2050 (Black & Veatch 2004a). The treatment and conveyance facilities must accommodate the additional flows while continuing to meet current or future water quality standards for the Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas Bay, and Lake Mead. Currently, highly treated effluent is discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at the existing discharge locations. The City of Las Vegas, Clark County Water Reclamation District, and City of Henderson comprise the CWC, which was created to address the management of the increasing wastewater flows in the Las Vegas Valley, has proposed the SCOP. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to surface water hydrology, groundwater, water quality, biological resources/endangered species, cultural resources, recreation, land use, air quality, noise, and socioeconomics. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each alternative would provide a system of pipelines and tunnels that discharges highly treated wastewater effluent to an alternate location in Lake Mead. The SCOP system would be designed to collect the treated effluent flows from the three treatment facilities, for conveyance to an area in the lower Colorado River system, while the majority of the flows bypass the lower Las Vegas Wash. The SCOP would be located in Clark County, Nevada The system would include activities and infrastructure that would be located on lands owned and/or managed by the City of Las Vegas, City of Henderson, Clark County, United States (U.S.) Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The action alternatives include the Boulder Islands North Alternative, Boulder Islands South Alternative, and Las Vegas Bay Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the pipeline would not be constructed. Highly treated effluent would continue to be discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at the existing discharge locations. The three agencies currently responsible for municipal wastewater treatment and discharge would expand and optimize their facilities to handle the increasing quantities of wastewater through 2050. Facility additions would occur on lands currently owned by the cities and county. Under the Boulder Islands North Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the vicinity of Boulder Islands. The Boulder Islands North Alternative includes the generation of electricity at a hydroelectric generation facility to be located on NPS land. Under the Boulder Islands South Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the vicinity of Boulder Islands, but there would be no power generation facility. Under the Las Vegas Bay Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the Las Vegas Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SCOP would meet current and future water quality standards for known pollutants, and as yet unknown standards for additional contaminants that may be regulated in the future; protect and enhance the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) by continuing to meet beneficial uses and recreational and resource values of the LMNRA, while more than doubling the treated effluent flows discharged to Lake Mead; accommodate Lake Mead's lowering water levels, which are important because the amount of mixing and dilution available in the inner Las Vegas Bay are also decreasing as the Lake level decreases; and reduce the degradation of source-water quality at the Southern Nevada Water System intake structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in the temporary displacement of wildlife species as well as disturbance, loss, or damage to individual plants and the seed bank. The SCOP would reduce the extent of habitat available to aquatic fauna. Project activities could result in removal of eligible cultural and paleontological resource sites from the landscape, some recreation areas would be inaccessible to the public during construction, and visual aesthetics would be marred by SCOP structures. Construction workers could encounter perchlorate contaminated groundwater LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050405, 837 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Colorado River KW - Lake Mead KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAN+WATER+COALITION+SYSTEMS+CONVEYANCE+AND+OPERATIONS+PROGRAM%2C+LAKE+MEAD+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLEAN+WATER+COALITION+SYSTEMS+CONVEYANCE+AND+OPERATIONS+PROGRAM%2C+LAKE+MEAD+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bolder City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36380788; 050054F-050417_0003 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 and revised measures are proposed. 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 erosion 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 were 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. A supplemental EIS of June 2005 re-evaluated 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, which continues to be the recommended alternative in this final EIS and supplement, would involve a northern lateral expansion of approximately 575 acres of remote island habitat that incorporates an open water embayment and includes approximately 29 percent wetland, 47 percent upland habitat, and 24 percent open water (embayment) 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 infauna 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and draft supplement, see 95-0594D, Volume 19, Number 6 and 05-0568D, Volume 29, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050417, Volume 1--676 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices A & B)--382 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices C-O)--949 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 3 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/36380788?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+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 - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORCHE BAYOU BASIN, ARKANSAS: ACQUISITION OF 1,750 ACRES OF BOTTOMLAND WITH NATURE APRECIATION FACILITIES. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FORCHE BAYOU BASIN, ARKANSAS: ACQUISITION OF 1,750 ACRES OF BOTTOMLAND WITH NATURE APRECIATION FACILITIES. AN - 36380143; 050057D-050422_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The channelization of the Forche Bayou and, more particularly, the related acquisition of 1,750 acres of bottomland hardwood forest located in the bayou basin in Pulaski County, Arkansas to provide flood control and related natural resource preservation and recreational uses are reevaluated in this draft supplement to the final EIS on the project. Fourche Bottoms is a highly productive ecosystem within the city limits of Little Rock that is threatened with degradation. Its hydrologic regime is integral to that of Fourche Creek. Within the basin's 160 square miles, the bottoms are the last remaining significant tract of natural bottomland hardwoods. This highly productive habitat type is in short supply in Arkansas and the nation. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works made a Record of Decision dated 31 May 1983, that excluded the 1,750-acre Fourche Bottoms acquisition with the nature appreciation facilities from Federal participation as these lands were not necessary for the flood damage reduction project to function properly. The flood control portion of the project was constructed. In April 2000 after requests from the city of Little Rock, the ASA(CW) stated that a limited reevaluation report (LRR) would be prepared to decide whether to budget for the unconstructed work: the 1,750-acre acquisition with nature appreciation facilities. The reevaluation found that the bottomland acquisition for environmental protection and flood reduction with nature appreciation facilities is consistent with policy. The selected bottomland acres areas are within the floodplain, connected by the creeks/flood control channel and are generally contiguous although separated by road and railroad crossings. The proposed recreation facilities would include 3 miles of trails and boardwalks, bridges, restrooms, signage, parking, and an access road. The recreation features would have a benefit to cost ratio of 1.8. The bottom land acquisition component is estimated to cost a total of $5,185,000. The 1,750-acre acquisition is estimated to cost $2.6 million, the LRR is estimated to cost $520,000, and the nature appreciation facilities are estimated to cost $2.0 million.. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to enhancing the flood control aspects of the project by removing floodplain land from potential development that would be prone to flooding, the land acquisition would also preserve and interpret the wetlands for public recreational and educational uses. An incremental analysis of the bottomland acquisition found that acquiring the entire 1,750 acres would result in the greatest increase to the wetland values and functions with an incremental cost per output of $2,337. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project-related construction activities could result in temporary and minor impacts to water quality and some loss of habitat in the immediate project area; however, none of the impacts have been determined to warrant further investigation or mitigation measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 050422, 321 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arkansas KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1988, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORCHE+BAYOU+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%3A+ACQUISITION+OF+1%2C750+ACRES+OF+BOTTOMLAND+WITH+NATURE+APRECIATION+FACILITIES.&rft.title=FORCHE+BAYOU+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%3A+ACQUISITION+OF+1%2C750+ACRES+OF+BOTTOMLAND+WITH+NATURE+APRECIATION+FACILITIES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. AN - 36379872; 050137F-050434_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane fully controlled access highway, designed to interstate standards, on new location bypassing existing US 412 north of Springdale in southern Benton and northern Washington counties, Arkansas is proposed. Major communities in the study area include Springdale, Tontitown, Elm Springs, Bethel Heights, Lowell, Sonora, Rogers, Bentonville, Fayetteville, and Cave Springs. US 412 is part of a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor running east and west across northern Arkansas. The highway, to be known as the Springdale Northern Bypass, would extend 19.8 to 20.6 miles, beginning at the interchange with existing US 412 west of Tontitown where the highway presently transitions from four to five lanes and extending to an interchange on existing US 412 between the Springdale eastern city limits and Beaver Lake. Both toll and non-toll funding alternatives are under consideration for each alignment. A May 2004 draft supplement to the draft EIS of January 2002 considered two alignments that were not considered in the draft EIS as well as the previously considered alignments, bringing the total number of alignment alternatives to four. A preferred alternative and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The bypass would function as a link in the U.S. 412 High Priority Corridor as well as a link in the state and regional transportation system. Separation of through and local traffic on U.S. 412 would improve safety, circulation patterns, connectivity, intermodal access, and reduce traffic in the city of Springdale. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of numerous residential owners and tenants as well as several businesses and, possibly, a small number of non-profit organizations. Residences owned by minorities, low-income households, and the elderly would be displaced. The project would also displace farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of state importance, woodland. The project would traverse streams and springs and encroach on floodplain, including floodway area and special flood hazard areas. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 and the draft supplement, see 02-0198D, Volume 26, Number 2 and see 04-0455D, Volume 28, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050434, 635 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-01-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36379647; 050131F-050412_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would e relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. The draft supplement of January 2005 to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. This final EIS continues to propose widening of US 6 from I-15 to I-70 via one of the two aforementioned action alternatives, while considering a No Action Alternative for comparison purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres {4-41} of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste sites . LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 05-0228D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0418D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050412, 573 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD NORTH OF RRANKLIN, FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMETNAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2004). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD NORTH OF RRANKLIN, FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMETNAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2004). AN - 36379611; 040124F-050375_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight- to 10-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. The facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity thought the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mark Thatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative were considered in the draft EIS of November 2004. This draft supplement to the draft EIS addresses an additional build alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. The highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0327F, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 050375, 54 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-SD KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+RRANKLIN%2C+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMETNAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD+NORTH+OF+RRANKLIN%2C+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMETNAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT. AN - 36379105; 050161F-050430_0002 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 final 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. Construction activities would occur between 2010 and 2013. 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 infrastructure, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0493D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050430, Volume 1--243 pages, Volume 2--663 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments 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/36379105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FAYETTEVILLE OUTER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY, CUMBERLAND, HOKE, AND ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA (FEDERAL AID NO. DPR-0100(001) AND DPR-0100(002); NCDOT PROJECT no. 8.2441301 AND 8.T441302; T.I.P. I.D. NO. U-2519 AND X-2). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - FAYETTEVILLE OUTER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY, CUMBERLAND, HOKE, AND ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA (FEDERAL AID NO. DPR-0100(001) AND DPR-0100(002); NCDOT PROJECT no. 8.2441301 AND 8.T441302; T.I.P. I.D. NO. U-2519 AND X-2). AN - 36379073; 050040D-050380_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multi-lane freeway, to be known as the Fayetteville Outer Loop, around a portion of the City of Fayetteville in Cumberland, Hoke, and Robeson counties, North Carolina is proposed. The 27-mile project would extend from an interchange with Interstate 95 (I-95) in Robeson County, continue north through Cumberland and Hoke counties, turn eastward along the southern boundary of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation, and end just west of Ramsey Street (U.S. 401). The facility would be a four-lane, divided freeway, with full access control. Grade separations or interchanges would be constructed at selected public crossroads. Design elements would include a minimum right-of-way of 350 feet, a depressed median width of either 70 feet or 46 feet, and a collector/distributor roadway system between the All American Freeway (State Route 1007) and Bragg Boulevard (North Carolina 24). The project would be executed via six separate construction projects over right-of-way acquisition for the entire project continuing over a period of four years. In conjunction with I-95, the Fayetteville Outer Loop would complete a circumferential freeway around the city of Fayetteville. In addition to the build alternatives, this final EIS considers a Mass Transit Alternative, Transportation Systems Management Alternative, an alternative involving improvement of existing facilities, and a No-Build Alternative. Thirteen build alignment alternatives are considered in the draft EIS of March 1999. Estimated overall project implementation construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs of the build alternatives range from $350.5 million to $381.9 million. A preferred alternative have been selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Accessibility in the Fayetteville area and the Fort Bragg Military Reservation would improve significantly, easing passenger movement and boosting the local economy. The facility would provide direct access to I-95 and reduce congestion on many existing roads. Construction of the freeway would fulfill the goals of the Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition and development would result in displacement of 224 to 326 residents, five to six businesses, three to four non-profit organizations, 163 to 455.3 acres of farmland, and 145 to 195.2 acres of riparian wetlands. The alignment would traverse 47.6 to 70.9 acres of floodplain land, affecting 26,305 to 32,715 feet of stream channel. Noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 323 to 459 residential receptor sites. Five of the alternatives would affect a National Wildlife Refuge System wetland conservation easement held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and eight alternatives would affect the Shaw-Gillis property, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Between 19 and 24 hazardous material sites would be located within or near the alignment. The project could affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, a protected species. 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 99-0380D, Volume 23, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050380, Draft EIS--483 pages and maps, Draft Re-evaluation--34 pages, Final EIS--380 pages and maps, 2--5 PY - 2005 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-99-EIS-99-01-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Wetlands 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/36379073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FAYETTEVILLE+OUTER+LOOP+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CUMBERLAND%2C+HOKE%2C+AND+ROBESON+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28FEDERAL+AID+NO.+DPR-0100%28001%29+AND+DPR-0100%28002%29%3B+NCDOT+PROJECT+no.+8.2441301+AND+8.T441302%3B+T.I.P.+I.D.+NO.+U-2519+AND+X-2%29.&rft.title=FAYETTEVILLE+OUTER+LOOP+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CUMBERLAND%2C+HOKE%2C+AND+ROBESON+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28FEDERAL+AID+NO.+DPR-0100%28001%29+AND+DPR-0100%28002%29%3B+NCDOT+PROJECT+no.+8.2441301+AND+8.T441302%3B+T.I.P.+I.D.+NO.+U-2519+AND+X-2%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2--5 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL AT CHARLESTON NAVAL COMPLEX, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MARINE CONTAINER TERMINAL AT CHARLESTON NAVAL COMPLEX, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 36378711; 050171D-050438_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a marine container terminal at the Charleston Naval Complex, North Charleston, South Carolina are proposed. A recently updated forecast of container cargo throughput for the naval complex would grow from 1.65 million TEU (one TEU is equivalent to one standard 20-foot shipping container) in 2004 to 4.0 million TEU in 2025. Moreover, new facilities are necessary to accommodate the recently developed post-Panamax class of cargo ships. Estimates indicate that the nine berths at the three existing complex terminals have a maximum annual capacity of 2.6 million TEU. Under the proposal, the applicant, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, would develop 13.6 acres of wharf structure on the west side of Cooper River, with a berthing area 50 feet deep and 150 feet wide. The wharf would be include with six container cranes with a minimum outreach of 200 feet. The wharf would include three berths with an overall length of 3,510 linear feet. The applicant would also develop 203.4 acres of light paved area for container processing and storage upland of the wharf and 40 acres of paved area and buildings for support gate structures and other operations and facilities; improve Tidewater Road to create a new road that would provide access to the Cooper River Marina, which is owned and operated by the Charleston County Parks and Recreation Commission; develop 25 acres of storm water management facilities at the project site, focused on a storm water treatment pond along the south side of the terminal; dredging of a turning basin of at least 1,500 feet by 1,500 feet at a depth of 50 feet below mean low water; and construction of an independent access road to the site of the terminal. In addition to the proposed development, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative that would not require federal permit authorization, terminal site alternatives, and access road alignment alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would help provide for state-owned port facilities that meet the reasonably projected throughput capacity for containerized cargo in the state of South Carolina for the next 20 years. Development of the proposed project would probably spur ancillary commercial and industrial development within the region; it would be likely that such development would occur in appropriately zoned areas. Maritime support industries would be most likely to located in the Port Overlay District established by the city of North Charleston for such purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Terminal development would transform a site that is largely undeveloped and natural to a site containing heavy industrial uses; however, this impact would be in keeping with the current zoning and planned redevelopment of the naval complex. Approximately 208 acres of relatively undeveloped upland would be converted from institutional to industrial use. In addition, approximately 65 acres of marsh and open water would be filled and converted to industrial use. Nonmaritime uses in the Port Overlay District could experience pressure to relocate from parties interested in maritime support services. Commercial and some residential property would be acquired and displaced due to access road rights-of-way development. The project would affect two Cold War-era properties at the naval complex (buildings 643 and 686), but these are not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Visual aesthetics from a downstream recreational marine would be degraded somewhat. Shoreline processes and floodplain capacity would be negatively affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050438, Volume 1--786 pages, Volume 2, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Navigation KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Shores KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Charleston Naval Complex KW - South Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARINE+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+AT+CHARLESTON+NAVAL+COMPLEX%2C+CHARLESTON%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=MARINE+CONTAINER+TERMINAL+AT+CHARLESTON+NAVAL+COMPLEX%2C+CHARLESTON%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Charleston, South Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FAYETTEVILLE OUTER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY, CUMBERLAND, HOKE, AND ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA (FEDERAL AID NO. DPR-0100(001) AND DPR-0100(002); NCDOT PROJECT no. 8.2441301 AND 8.T441302; T.I.P. I.D. NO. U-2519 AND X-2). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - FAYETTEVILLE OUTER LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY, CUMBERLAND, HOKE, AND ROBESON COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA (FEDERAL AID NO. DPR-0100(001) AND DPR-0100(002); NCDOT PROJECT no. 8.2441301 AND 8.T441302; T.I.P. I.D. NO. U-2519 AND X-2). AN - 36378036; 050040D-050380_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new multi-lane freeway, to be known as the Fayetteville Outer Loop, around a portion of the City of Fayetteville in Cumberland, Hoke, and Robeson counties, North Carolina is proposed. The 27-mile project would extend from an interchange with Interstate 95 (I-95) in Robeson County, continue north through Cumberland and Hoke counties, turn eastward along the southern boundary of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation, and end just west of Ramsey Street (U.S. 401). The facility would be a four-lane, divided freeway, with full access control. Grade separations or interchanges would be constructed at selected public crossroads. Design elements would include a minimum right-of-way of 350 feet, a depressed median width of either 70 feet or 46 feet, and a collector/distributor roadway system between the All American Freeway (State Route 1007) and Bragg Boulevard (North Carolina 24). The project would be executed via six separate construction projects over right-of-way acquisition for the entire project continuing over a period of four years. In conjunction with I-95, the Fayetteville Outer Loop would complete a circumferential freeway around the city of Fayetteville. In addition to the build alternatives, this final EIS considers a Mass Transit Alternative, Transportation Systems Management Alternative, an alternative involving improvement of existing facilities, and a No-Build Alternative. Thirteen build alignment alternatives are considered in the draft EIS of March 1999. Estimated overall project implementation construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs of the build alternatives range from $350.5 million to $381.9 million. A preferred alternative have been selected. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Accessibility in the Fayetteville area and the Fort Bragg Military Reservation would improve significantly, easing passenger movement and boosting the local economy. The facility would provide direct access to I-95 and reduce congestion on many existing roads. Construction of the freeway would fulfill the goals of the Fayetteville Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan and the Cumberland County 2010 Land Use Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way acquisition and development would result in displacement of 224 to 326 residents, five to six businesses, three to four non-profit organizations, 163 to 455.3 acres of farmland, and 145 to 195.2 acres of riparian wetlands. The alignment would traverse 47.6 to 70.9 acres of floodplain land, affecting 26,305 to 32,715 feet of stream channel. Noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 323 to 459 residential receptor sites. Five of the alternatives would affect a National Wildlife Refuge System wetland conservation easement held by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and eight alternatives would affect the Shaw-Gillis property, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Between 19 and 24 hazardous material sites would be located within or near the alignment. The project could affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, a protected species. 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 99-0380D, Volume 23, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050380, Draft EIS--483 pages and maps, Draft Re-evaluation--34 pages, Final EIS--380 pages and maps, 2--5 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-99-EIS-99-01-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Preserves KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Wetlands 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/36378036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FAYETTEVILLE+OUTER+LOOP+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CUMBERLAND%2C+HOKE%2C+AND+ROBESON+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28FEDERAL+AID+NO.+DPR-0100%28001%29+AND+DPR-0100%28002%29%3B+NCDOT+PROJECT+no.+8.2441301+AND+8.T441302%3B+T.I.P.+I.D.+NO.+U-2519+AND+X-2%29.&rft.title=FAYETTEVILLE+OUTER+LOOP+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+CUMBERLAND%2C+HOKE%2C+AND+ROBESON+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28FEDERAL+AID+NO.+DPR-0100%28001%29+AND+DPR-0100%28002%29%3B+NCDOT+PROJECT+no.+8.2441301+AND+8.T441302%3B+T.I.P.+I.D.+NO.+U-2519+AND+X-2%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2--5 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION FEASIBILITY REPORT. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION FEASIBILITY REPORT. AN - 36374742; 050030D-050377_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction plan for Montauk Point, East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York is proposed. The study area lies between the Atlantic Ocean and Block Island Sound at the eastern most end of the south form of Long Island. Existing storm protection structures are not entirely effective against serious storm surges and are affected by normal littoral erosion and wave action. If allowed to continue, progressive instability of the Montauk Point bluff would result in the irrecoverable loss of the Montauk Point Lighthouse and its associated structures, along with local archaeological resources. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), and several sub-alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives include the following possible structural features: a stone revetment, an offshore breakwater combined with beach fill, T-groins combined with beach fill, beach fill alone, and relocation of the lighthouse. The stone revetment would constitute the most reliable and cost-effective structural solution; hence, this approach constitutes the tentatively selected alternative. Specifically, the alternative would involve the construction of a 840-foot-long stone revetment, with a crest width of 40 feet at an elevation of 25 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum; placement of 12.6 tons of quarried stone armor unit from the crest of the revetment down to the embedded toe; placement of three layers of four- to five-ton armor units atop the splash apron; and provision of a heavily embedded toe incorporated to protect against breaking waves, provide long-term stone stability and scour at the toe of the structure. First cost of the selected plan is estimated at $13.7 million at October 2004 price levels, resulting in an annual cost of $887,300 and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.78. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revetment system and associated facilities would protect the lighthouse and associated support structures and archaeological resources against erosion caused by normal hydrologic actions and, particularly, by extreme storm events. Shoreline erosion in adjacent areas would also be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and placement of the revetment would result in the disturbance of sediment, degrading water and destroying sensible benthic organisms, and the temporary and permanent displacement of benthic habitat. Shoreline and beach habitat would also be lost, and recreational access to the Atlantic Ocean would be decreased significantly. Normal littoral patterns would be disrupted permanently. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 050377, 335 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Breakwaters KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Historic Sites KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Shores KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTAUK+POINT%2C+NEW+YORK%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+FEASIBILITY+REPORT.&rft.title=MONTAUK+POINT%2C+NEW+YORK%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+FEASIBILITY+REPORT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New York, New York; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANANN VALLEY INSTITUTE 4 OFFICE COMPLEX NEAR DAVIS, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CANANN VALLEY INSTITUTE 4 OFFICE COMPLEX NEAR DAVIS, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 36371262; 050122D-050442_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new office complex at the 3,221-acre Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) Complex near Davis, West Virginia is proposed. CVI undertakes research and professional and public educati9on focusing on ecological and environmental issues, particularly with respect to ecological restoration. Existing CVI offices do not provide sufficient space or facilities to address the mission of the organization. The proposed facility development would be funded by a grant from the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration. Facilities to be provided include offices, classrooms, laboratories, a 250-seat auditorium, parking facilities, outdoor classrooms, and interpretive areas. As part of the project, an access road would be constructed leading from a major highway to the complex. The facility would be a "zero-discharge" installation, incorporating composting and living machine/drip irrigation systems to treat solid and liquid wastes. In addition to the No-Build Alternative, this draft EIS, addresses three facilities expansion site alternative and seven access road routing alternatives. Facility Site 1 (Rocky Point) lies on the peak of Rocky Point at an elevation of 3,600 feet. A flat area at the peak of the mountain would provide adequate space for the location of the facility proposed. Facility Site 2 (Bearden Know) lies on the peak of Bearden Knob at an elevation of 3,700 feet. The flat area at the peak is much smaller than the area provided at sites 1 and 2. Facility Site 3 (Yellow Creek) lies at an elevation of 3,200 feet near the West Virginia (WV) 93 crossing of Beaver Creek; once again the topography would provide an adequate space for the proposed facility. The preferred access road routing alternative routing alternative (Alternative G) would provide access from the northeast off WV 93. The road would begin approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the WV 93 bridge over Beaver Creek and extend northeast of a large wetland adjacent to Beaver Creek and southeast to the access to the Yellow Creek Site. Depending on the facility location alternative and access route selected, estimated cost of access road construction ranges from $547,400 to $8.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide modern office, teaching, and research facilities for a growing number of Canaan Valley Institute employees and researchers; provide students and researchers with alarge tract of terrestrial and aquatic habitat for outdoor classrooms and research; and provide a unique experience for visitors with acess to outdoor classrooms. Outdoor classrooms would provdie a unique experience for visitors with access to outdoor classrooms. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The physical footprint of the complex would displace four acres of natural area, while the access road would disturb another five to 20 acres. Habitat for Indiana bat would decline by as much as 18.2 acres and research areas would suffer up to 12.3 acres of long-term impacts. From 6.9 to 41.7 acres of terrestrial habitat would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050442, ges, Appendices--720 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Buildings KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - West Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANANN+VALLEY+INSTITUTE+4+OFFICE+COMPLEX+NEAR+DAVIS%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CANANN+VALLEY+INSTITUTE+4+OFFICE+COMPLEX+NEAR+DAVIS%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 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 3] T2 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36368667; 050054F-050417_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 and revised measures are proposed. 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 erosion 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 were 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. A supplemental EIS of June 2005 re-evaluated 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, which continues to be the recommended alternative in this final EIS and supplement, would involve a northern lateral expansion of approximately 575 acres of remote island habitat that incorporates an open water embayment and includes approximately 29 percent wetland, 47 percent upland habitat, and 24 percent open water (embayment) 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 infauna 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and draft supplement, see 95-0594D, Volume 19, Number 6 and 05-0568D, Volume 29, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050417, Volume 1--676 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices A & B)--382 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices C-O)--949 pages, 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/36368667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+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 - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, DELONG MOUNTAIN TERMINAL, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, DELONG MOUNTAIN TERMINAL, ALASKA. AN - 36368554; 050138D-050441_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of navigation improvements at DeLong Mountain Terminal (DMT), Alaska are proposed. The DMT is an industrial site at Portsite in the Northwest Artic Borough, located approximately 60 miles north f Kotzebue on the southeastern coast of Chukchi Sea. Portsite is connected to the Red Dog Min, the world's largest zinc-producing mine, by the only major road in the region. Neither the mine nor the communities in the region are connected by road to each other or to a larger road system. Several alternatives to resolve this situation, including the construction of roads to existing land- and sea-based infrastructure and the construction of new infrastructure at and away from Portsite, were initially considered. Of those alternatives considered, this draft EIS has retained for consideration No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, known as the Trestle-Channel Alternative, would Involve construction of a 1,450-foot-long trestle from shore to a new offshore loading platform and dredging of a 3.5-mile channel from the loading platform out to the natural bottom contour of 53 feet below mean lower low water. This would allow navigation by bulk freighters and tanker ships. The facilities would also increase ore concentrate loading efficiency and allow direct offloading of fuel from tanker ships. Approximately 8.1 million cubic yards of dredged material would be placed in a 5,600-acre rectangular disposal area offshore of Portsite. Material from future maintenance dredging would be dumped in the same disposal site. Cost of dredging the federal channel and turning basin is estimated at $75 million; annual maintenance costs are estimated at $1.25 million. Total cost for the non-federal sponsor project components is estimated at $155.5 million, while annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $6.5 million. The project would generate estimated annual benefits valued at $26.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would reduce the costs of transporting fuel used in northwestern Alaska and ease the loading of ore concentrate from the Red Dog Mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and long-term operation of the proposed facilities would affect organisms and habitat over approximately 6,500 acres of sea bottom in the Portsite area. Long-term impacts would not be significant with respect to any biological resource of concern. Subsistence harvest of most resources would be unaffected, but there could be local impacts to harvest potential of some marine mammal species. JF - EPA number: 050441, Volume 1-517 pages, Volume 2--339 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Navigation KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alaska UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+DELONG+MOUNTAIN+TERMINAL%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+DELONG+MOUNTAIN+TERMINAL%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TOWN OF BLOOMSBURG, COLUMBIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT. AN - 36368267; 050161F-050430_0001 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 final 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. Construction activities would occur between 2010 and 2013. 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 infrastructure, 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). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0493D, Volume 29, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 050430, Volume 1--243 pages, Volume 2--663 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments 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/36368267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=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 - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/YS 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/YS 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 36367959; 050126D-050387_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 65-mile segment of transcontinental interstate highway (Interstate 69 (I-69)) beginning at State Route (SR) 385 (Paul Barrett Parkway) in Millinton, north to I-155 at Dyersburg in Selby, Tipton, Lauderdale counties, Tennessee is proposed. The facility currently serving the corridor will be heavily congested from the US 51 Bypass around Dyersbjurg to the I-155 with an unacceptably low level of service by the year 2010. By 2030, virtually all segments of US 51 would be congested, with several segments reaching the lowest gradable level of service. The proposed four-lane, controlled access facility would constitute an independent utility segment of Corridor 18, a congressionally mandated high priority transportation corridor, designated as I-69. Portions of the roadway would follow a new alignment, but one section of one build alternative would following existing US 51. Ten build alternatives, which constitute corridor options and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Depending on the build alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $492.4 million to $601.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing an unfinished portion of High Priority Corridor 18 and I-69. Local motorists would benefit from the upgrading of the currently substandard level of service along US 51 within the study corridor in an area where modal connections are substandard to inadequate. Economic development in the region served by the facility would be enhanced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, rights-of-way development would displace 59 to 111 residences, two to four businesses, 11.9 to 100.4 acres of wetlands, and 328.5 to 844 acres of floodplain. Vegetation and habitat, including wetland habitat, associated with the displaced natural soils and waters would be permanently lost, and development spurred by the presence of high-profile, high-volume highway would displace additional natural and social resources. Access to some locations that currently are open to access from the facility would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050387, 331 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-05-01-D KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FYS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FYS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNEL, HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CRANEY ISLAND EASTWARD EXPANSION, NORFOLK HARBOR AND CHANNEL, HAMPTON ROADS, VIRGINIA. AN - 36367924; 050166D-050385_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Craney Island Dredged Management Area (CIDMMA) and development of a container terminal at the site in Norfolk Harbor of Hampton Roads between the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia are proposed. The project would extend the CIDMMA by 580 acres to the east of the current east end of the island site. The CIDMMA is a federally owned and operated dredged material placement area open for public and private dredged material disposal from projects within the Norfolk Harbor and adjacent water. The site has been in continuous use since 1957, when it was expected to have a useful life of 20 years, with a capacity of 96 million cubic yards. At the end of federal fiscal year 2004, the CIDMMA holds over 225 million cubic yards of dredged material deposits; this has occurred with the additional of dredged material placement capacity. The facility is projected to reach the end of its useful life in 2025. The proposed expansion site, which is also the tentatively recommended alternative, lies between the CIDMMA and the Craney Island reach of the federal navigation channel in the Elizabeth River. Following the expiration of the useful life of the expanded CIDMMA, the site would be converted into a container terminal complex, including an access channel, berths, wharves, container yards, cranes, gate facilities, intermodal yards, new access roads and ramps, a new rail track, cargo processing and support facilities, and storm water management areas. In addition to the proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, an alternative within the existing site, and alternative expansion sites. Cost of the project, which would be implemented in four phases, is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CIDMMA expansion would extend the life of the site, allowing the safe disposal of contaminated and non-contaminated sediments dredged from the harbor and related waters. Hence, the useful life of the site would be extended far beyond its current 2025 closure date. In addition, and site would provide new acreage for long-term berthing and landside port facilities and, possibly, serve as a logistical and tactical area supporting deployment of natural defense forces. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expansion of thee CIDMMA as proposed would result i the loss of 580 acres of marine bottom and open-water habitat to provide for a new dredged material placement cell, including a main dike and perimeter dikes. Wetland habitat would also be affected. Dredging and disposal cell and terminal facilities construction would result in the short-term release of sediment and organic material into the water column. The presence of the terminal would increase ship traffic in the harbor and Hampton Roads, increasing the potential for vessel collisions and other accidents. Emissions from the terminal facility would violate federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050385, 511 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Hampton Roads KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CRANEY+ISLAND+EASTWARD+EXPANSION%2C+NORFOLK+HARBOR+AND+CHANNEL%2C+HAMPTON+ROADS%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CRANEY+ISLAND+EASTWARD+EXPANSION%2C+NORFOLK+HARBOR+AND+CHANNEL%2C+HAMPTON+ROADS%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/YS 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/YS 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 36367831; 050126D-050387_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 65-mile segment of transcontinental interstate highway (Interstate 69 (I-69)) beginning at State Route (SR) 385 (Paul Barrett Parkway) in Millinton, north to I-155 at Dyersburg in Selby, Tipton, Lauderdale counties, Tennessee is proposed. The facility currently serving the corridor will be heavily congested from the US 51 Bypass around Dyersbjurg to the I-155 with an unacceptably low level of service by the year 2010. By 2030, virtually all segments of US 51 would be congested, with several segments reaching the lowest gradable level of service. The proposed four-lane, controlled access facility would constitute an independent utility segment of Corridor 18, a congressionally mandated high priority transportation corridor, designated as I-69. Portions of the roadway would follow a new alignment, but one section of one build alternative would following existing US 51. Ten build alternatives, which constitute corridor options and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Depending on the build alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $492.4 million to $601.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing an unfinished portion of High Priority Corridor 18 and I-69. Local motorists would benefit from the upgrading of the currently substandard level of service along US 51 within the study corridor in an area where modal connections are substandard to inadequate. Economic development in the region served by the facility would be enhanced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, rights-of-way development would displace 59 to 111 residences, two to four businesses, 11.9 to 100.4 acres of wetlands, and 328.5 to 844 acres of floodplain. Vegetation and habitat, including wetland habitat, associated with the displaced natural soils and waters would be permanently lost, and development spurred by the presence of high-profile, high-volume highway would displace additional natural and social resources. Access to some locations that currently are open to access from the facility would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050387, 331 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-05-01-D KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FYS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FYS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. 411 CONNECTOR, BARTOW COUNTY, GEORGIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT) [Part 1 of 1] T2 - U.S. 411 CONNECTOR, BARTOW COUNTY, GEORGIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT) AN - 36367527; 050135D-050432_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of five to seven miles of fully access controlled, four-lane highway, to be known as the US 411 Connector, in Bartow County, Georgia is proposed. The study corridor extends from the US 411/US 41 interchange on the west to the Interstate 75 (I-75) interchange on the east. In addition to a No Action Alternative and two transportation system management alternatives, this draft supplemental EIS considers 4 build alternatives. Alternative A would widen the existing facilities to six lanes and construction of a bypass of the existing State Route (SR) 61/US 41 interchange. Alternative AB would provide a new US 411 to I-75 connection by constructing a freeway along the existing SR 3/US 41 alignment with frontage roads for local access, construction of a bypss of the SR 61/US 41 interchange, and construction of a freeway along a new alignment east of SR 61/US 411 that would connect to I-75 at the existing SR 20/I-75 interchange. Alternative B would provide a new US 411/I-75 connection by constructing a freeway along a new alignment between the US 411/US 41 interchange and the SR 20/I-75 interchange. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would provide a new US 411/I-75 connection by constructing a freeway along a new alignment between the US 411/US 41 interchange and SR 20 east of I-75, with a new interchange at I-75. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would improve the linkage between the US 411/SR 20 corridor and the interstate system by providing a more direct connection between US 411 at its interchange with US 1/SR 3 west of Cartersville and I-75. A more direct connection to I-75 would be provided from Bartow County as well as Floyd County and westward into Alabama. Regional through traffic would be separated from local traffic along the existing connection (US 411.US 41 and SR 20), substantially improving the safety and convenience of local access and circulation by reducing congestion in the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 15 to 52 residential units and five to 22 businesses. In addition, the project would require seven to 36 acres of fill in the 100-year floodplains of three to five streams, and displace 0.12 to 5.77 acres of wetlands, as well as possibly affecting on one historic resource and up to two archeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 23 to 68 sensitive receptor sites. Two alternatives would result in socioeconomic impacts that disproportionate affect low-income or minority populations. The preferred alternative would displace 23 residential units and five businesses, 5.02 acres of wetlands, 36 acres of floodplain and 3,353 linear feet of stream, and two cultural resource sites. Traffic-generated noise impacts under the preferred alternative would affect 18 residences and five businesses. Community cohesion would be disrupted directly in three areas and indirectly in two others, but disadvantaged and minority populations would not be affected disproportionately. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050432, 549 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Georgia KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+411+CONNECTOR%2C+BARTOW+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29&rft.title=U.S.+411+CONNECTOR%2C+BARTOW+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Augusta, Georgia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 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 3] T2 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36365138; 050054F-050417_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 and revised measures are proposed. 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 erosion 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 were 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. A supplemental EIS of June 2005 re-evaluated 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, which continues to be the recommended alternative in this final EIS and supplement, would involve a northern lateral expansion of approximately 575 acres of remote island habitat that incorporates an open water embayment and includes approximately 29 percent wetland, 47 percent upland habitat, and 24 percent open water (embayment) 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 infauna 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and draft supplement, see 95-0594D, Volume 19, Number 6 and 05-0568D, Volume 29, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050417, Volume 1--676 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices A & B)--382 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices C-O)--949 pages, 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/36365138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+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 - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36365067; 050131F-050412_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the draft EIS of September 2004. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either action alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would e relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. The draft supplement of January 2005 to the draft EIS addresses the Four Lane Alternative, as well as impacts to air quality, water quality, wetlands, and mitigation measures. This final EIS continues to propose widening of US 6 from I-15 to I-70 via one of the two aforementioned action alternatives, while considering a No Action Alternative for comparison purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7,7 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 7.6 to 7.7 acres {4-41} of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. Either alternative would affect the federally protected Ute ladies'-tresses, clay phacelia, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, and razorback sucker, as well as two state-listed bird species; 10 significant historical, three significant archaeological, eight significant architectural, and one significant paleontological sites; disturb 11 potential hazardous waste sites . LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 05-0228D, Volume 29, Number 2 and 05-0418D, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050412, 573 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, DELONG MOUNTAIN TERMINAL, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, DELONG MOUNTAIN TERMINAL, ALASKA. AN - 36364841; 050138D-050441_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of navigation improvements at DeLong Mountain Terminal (DMT), Alaska are proposed. The DMT is an industrial site at Portsite in the Northwest Artic Borough, located approximately 60 miles north f Kotzebue on the southeastern coast of Chukchi Sea. Portsite is connected to the Red Dog Min, the world's largest zinc-producing mine, by the only major road in the region. Neither the mine nor the communities in the region are connected by road to each other or to a larger road system. Several alternatives to resolve this situation, including the construction of roads to existing land- and sea-based infrastructure and the construction of new infrastructure at and away from Portsite, were initially considered. Of those alternatives considered, this draft EIS has retained for consideration No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, known as the Trestle-Channel Alternative, would Involve construction of a 1,450-foot-long trestle from shore to a new offshore loading platform and dredging of a 3.5-mile channel from the loading platform out to the natural bottom contour of 53 feet below mean lower low water. This would allow navigation by bulk freighters and tanker ships. The facilities would also increase ore concentrate loading efficiency and allow direct offloading of fuel from tanker ships. Approximately 8.1 million cubic yards of dredged material would be placed in a 5,600-acre rectangular disposal area offshore of Portsite. Material from future maintenance dredging would be dumped in the same disposal site. Cost of dredging the federal channel and turning basin is estimated at $75 million; annual maintenance costs are estimated at $1.25 million. Total cost for the non-federal sponsor project components is estimated at $155.5 million, while annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $6.5 million. The project would generate estimated annual benefits valued at $26.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would reduce the costs of transporting fuel used in northwestern Alaska and ease the loading of ore concentrate from the Red Dog Mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and long-term operation of the proposed facilities would affect organisms and habitat over approximately 6,500 acres of sea bottom in the Portsite area. Long-term impacts would not be significant with respect to any biological resource of concern. Subsistence harvest of most resources would be unaffected, but there could be local impacts to harvest potential of some marine mammal species. JF - EPA number: 050441, Volume 1-517 pages, Volume 2--339 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Navigation KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alaska UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364841?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+DELONG+MOUNTAIN+TERMINAL%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+DELONG+MOUNTAIN+TERMINAL%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development of an Aquifer, Storage and Recovery (Asr) Site Selection Suitability Index in Support of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project AN - 19444216; 6499372 AB - In support of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, South Florida Water Management District, and others, are currently engaged in the execution of four Aquifer, Storage and Recovery (ASR) pilot projects located throughout the Everglades region. Through data collection efforts and thorough testing, the four pilot projects will enable the project team to better grasp the technical uncertainties associated with implementing ASR on a grand scale. At the same time, the ASR Regional Study is focused upon the development of a numerical model to provide a better understanding of the south Florida environments ability to support a proposed 333 well ASR system, the largest such system in the world. One effort that has been completed as part of the Regional Study is the preliminary optimization of ASR well site selection in support of the proposed 333 well system. After developing an ASR site selection suitability index, an interagency team utilized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the new site suitability methodology to evaluate and propose an initial array of potential ASR well locations. The suitability index was based on the premise of maximizing ASR effectiveness while minimizing any attendant impacts. JF - Journal of Environmental Hydrology AU - Brown, Chris J AU - Weiss, Rebecca AU - Verrastro, Robert AU - Schubert, Steve AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 701 San Marco Blvd, Prudential Bldg-3, West Jacksonville, Florida 32207, USA, christopher.j.brown@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - International Association for Environmental Hydrology, P.O. Box 35324 San Antonio TX 78235-5324 USA, [mailto:hydroweg@mail.org], [URL:http://www.hydroweb.com] VL - 13 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - Aquifers KW - Storage KW - Testing Procedures KW - USA, Florida, Everglades KW - Site Selection KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Water Management KW - Wildlife KW - Optimization KW - Geographical Information Systems KW - Data Collections KW - SW 2040:Groundwater management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Environmental+Hydrology&rft.atitle=Development+of+an+Aquifer%2C+Storage+and+Recovery+%28Asr%29+Site+Selection+Suitability+Index+in+Support+of+the+Comprehensive+Everglades+Restoration+Project&rft.au=Brown%2C+Chris+J%3BWeiss%2C+Rebecca%3BVerrastro%2C+Robert%3BSchubert%2C+Steve&rft.aulast=Brown&rft.aufirst=Chris&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+Hydrology&rft.issn=1058-3912&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Article No. 20 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Testing Procedures; Storage; Aquifers; Water Management; Hydrologic Models; Site Selection; Wildlife; Optimization; Data Collections; Geographical Information Systems; USA, Florida, Everglades ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Aquatic Plant Assessments for Spring Creek Low-Dose Fluridone Injection Treatment: Year-of-Treatment and 2-Year Post-Treatment Findings AN - 19442334; 7173676 AB - Lake Seminole was impounded in 1957 and hydrilla was discovered in the 1980's. By 1992, approximately 75 percent of the surface area of the reservoir was impacted by hydrilla. This study was conducted to determine effectiveness of low dose fluridone treatments in the Spring Creek Arm of Lake Seminole. Pre- and post-aquatic plant surveys using point-intercept, plant biomass and hydroacoustic techniques were conducted to assess treatment success. In year 2000, pretreatment surveys found hydrilla occurred between 71.4 to 100 percent of all Spring Creek sites. By year 2002, in the upper regions of Spring Creek, hydrilla had been replaced by several native aquatic plant species including pondweeds, muskgrass, naiads, and coontail. In the lower regions, hydrilla was still the most frequently observed plant; however, several native plants, including coontail, muskgrass, naiads, and pondweeds had increased in frequency as compared to year 2000 when the pretreatment surveys were conducted. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Stewart, R M AU - Way, A S AU - Owens, C S AU - Morgan, D M Y1 - 2005/01// PY - 2005 DA - January 2005 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Water reservoirs KW - Laboratory testing KW - Laboratories KW - USA, Georgia, Seminole L. KW - Aquatic plants KW - Surveys KW - Canada, British Columbia, Spring Creek KW - Streams KW - Inland water environment KW - Environmental factors KW - Lakes KW - Aquatic Macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae) KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Assessments KW - Hydrilla KW - Water springs KW - Waterways KW - Reservoirs KW - plant biomass KW - surface area KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3070:Water quality control KW - Q5 08501:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19442334?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=Stewart%2C+R+M%3BWay%2C+A+S%3BOwens%2C+C+S%3BMorgan%2C+D+M&rft.aulast=Stewart&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Aquatic+Plant+Assessments+for+Spring+Creek+Low-Dose+Fluridone+Injection+Treatment%3A+Year-of-Treatment+and+2-Year+Post-Treatment+Findings&rft.title=Aquatic+Plant+Assessments+for+Spring+Creek+Low-Dose+Fluridone+Injection+Treatment%3A+Year-of-Treatment+and+2-Year+Post-Treatment+Findings&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 - RPRT T1 - Invasive Animal Species in Marine and Estuarine Environments: Biology and Ecology AN - 19441205; 7173675 AB - Every year new animal species are inadvertently or intentionally introduced into the marine and estuarine waters of the United States. Originating overseas and from other U.S. waters, invasive species have the potential to disrupt local ecosystems, fisheries, and human infrastructure. Biological invasions directly impact the mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) through its responsibilities in maintenance of our nation's waterways, erosion control, water resource management, and estuarine and marine habitat restoration. This report describes the biology and ecology of invasive marine animals and identifies specific organisms that may pose a threat to USACE activities. This includes species already established in U.S. waters and those not yet present that are likely to pose a threat if introduced. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Ray, G L Y1 - 2005/01// PY - 2005 DA - January 2005 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Sustainability Science Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Estuarine Environment KW - Ecosystems KW - invasive animals KW - Water resources KW - Soil erosion KW - Water Resources Management KW - Ecology KW - Potential resources KW - Erosion Control KW - Exotic Species KW - Fisheries KW - invasive species KW - Brackishwater environment KW - responsibility KW - Erosion control KW - Water resources management KW - Laboratory testing KW - Laboratories KW - Estuaries KW - Brackish KW - Habitat KW - Ecosystem disturbance KW - Maintenance KW - USA KW - Water management KW - Habitat improvement KW - erosion control KW - Nature conservation KW - invasions KW - Waterways KW - Introduced species KW - infrastructure KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19441205?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=Ray%2C+G+L&rft.aulast=Ray&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Invasive+Animal+Species+in+Marine+and+Estuarine+Environments%3A+Biology+and+Ecology&rft.title=Invasive+Animal+Species+in+Marine+and+Estuarine+Environments%3A+Biology+and+Ecology&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 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Response to the Hurricanes of 2004 AN - 19435174; 6536189 AB - The hurricane season of 2004 brought much damage to the Southeast United States through wind, wave, and flooding effects. Executing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) recovery missions resulted in enormous workloads and many logistical challenges as hurricane after hurricane continued to pound the Southeast. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was tasked with several key missions to assist victims of the hurricanes in recovery efforts and to assist in preparing for the next hurricane season. One piece of this mission dealt with the Congressional response to damages to federal Shore Protection Projects (SPP), which experienced large erosional losses due to the prolonged storms. Congress responded to these storm impacts with an emergency supplemental appropriation for the Corps of Engineers, Public Law 108-324. PL 108-324 provided $148 million in Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) funding for the repair of federal SPPs damaged by the storms. The FCCE appropriations will provide for 8 million cubic yards of material to bring the beaches back to pre-storm conditions at a 100 percent federal estimated cost of $74.8 million. Restoration to full project dimensions involves the placement of an additional 10.3 million cubic yards of material at a total estimated cost of $106 million. JF - Shore & Beach AU - Haubner AU - McMillen, R AU - Schmidt, D V AU - Amundson, K AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232, USA, danielr.haubner@saj02.usace.army.mi Y1 - 2005///0, PY - 2005 DA - 0, 2005 SP - 16 EP - 19 VL - 73 IS - 2-3 SN - 0037-4237, 0037-4237 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Marine KW - Hurricanes KW - Flood control KW - Shore protection KW - Financing KW - Flooding KW - Wind waves KW - ASW, USA, Southeast KW - Coastal zone management KW - Restoration KW - O 6060:Coastal Zone Resources and Management KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19435174?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=Shore+%26+Beach&rft.atitle=U.S.+Army+Corps+of+Engineers+Response+to+the+Hurricanes+of+2004&rft.au=Haubner%3BMcMillen%2C+R%3BSchmidt%2C+D+V%3BAmundson%2C+K&rft.aulast=Haubner&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=16&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Shore+%26+Beach&rft.issn=00374237&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Flood control; Hurricanes; Shore protection; Financing; Flooding; Wind waves; Restoration; Coastal zone management; ASW, USA, Southeast; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - RDX Biodegradation Column Study: Extent of RDX Mineralization and Influence of Temperature on Rate of RDX Biotransformation AN - 19431864; 6223310 AB - A series of column studies, with aquifer material from the former Nebraska Ordnance Plant (NOP), were performed to evaluate the influence of temperature on the rate of RDX biodegradation, and to assess the ultimate fate of RDX in groundwater under biologically induced reductive conditions. In treatment columns, RDX-contaminated water was amended with acetate as a readily available carbon source, and in control columns no electron donor was used. The results of the temperature study demonstrated clear indications of adverse effects of lower temperature on biological activity of RDX degraders. As the temperature decreased from 15 to 10 and eventually to 5 degree C, the concentration of nitroso-substituted metabolites and untreated RDX increased in the effluent stream. The estimated first-order biodegradation rate co-efficient (k) for RDX at 15 degree C was 0.155 1/h ( plus or minus 0.019, n = 3). This rate coefficient decreased by about 37% to 0.098 1/h ( plus or minus 0.017, n = 3) at 10 degree C, and by another 38% to 0.061 1/h ( plus or minus 0.016, n = 3) at 5 degree C. An activation energy of 63.54 kJ/mol RDX was estimated from these reaction rate coefficients at three different operating temperatures. Results of the radiolabel study demonstrated that the ultimate fate of RDX under in situ reductive conditions is highly dependent on redox conditions in the aquifer. In treatment columns ( Delta E sub(h) = -550 to -700 mV), 23-46% of initial radiocarbon was mineralized to super(14)CO sub(2) compared to <5% in control columns, where Delta E sub(h) ranged between 50 to -50 mV. The dissolved fraction of the initial radiocarbon in treatment columns was estimated between 46 and 64%. No or very low levels of nitroso-substituted RDX transformation products were identified in dissolved fraction from the treatment columns. In control columns dissolved fraction accounted for about 86% of initial super(14)C and was composed of mainly untreated RDX. JF - Environmental Engineering Science AU - Wani, AH AU - Felt AU - Davis, J L AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (Attn: CEERD-EP-E), 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, Altaf.H.Wani@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 310 EP - 323 VL - 22 IS - 3 SN - 1092-8758, 1092-8758 KW - hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Acetic acid KW - Temperature effects KW - USA, Nebraska KW - Temperature KW - W 30950:Waste Treatment & Pollution Clean-up KW - A 01450:Environmental Pollution & Waste Treatment KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19431864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Engineering+Science&rft.atitle=RDX+Biodegradation+Column+Study%3A+Extent+of+RDX+Mineralization+and+Influence+of+Temperature+on+Rate+of+RDX+Biotransformation&rft.au=Wani%2C+AH%3BFelt%3BDavis%2C+J+L&rft.aulast=Wani&rft.aufirst=AH&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=310&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Engineering+Science&rft.issn=10928758&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Temperature effects; Temperature; USA, Nebraska ER - TY - JOUR T1 - 2,4-D and Mycoleptodiscus terrestris for Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil AN - 17643556; 6482389 AB - Growth chamber studies were conducted to evaluate the impact of an indigenous fungal pathogen, Mycoleptodiscus terrestris (Gerd.) Ostazeski, and the herbicide 2,4-D applied alone and in combination with one another, on the growth of a nuisance submersed plant, Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.). Treatments included 0.25, 0.50, and 1.00 mg L super(-1) 2,4-D; 0.08, 0.16, and 0.32 ml L super(-1) M. terrestris; combinations of both agents at all rates (applied simultaneously); and untreated controls. Six weeks after application, all treatments except the lowest rate of M. terrestris, had significantly reduced shoot biomass compared with untreated controls. Herbicide and pathogen combinations provided better control of Eurasian watermilfoil than either agent used alone. Based on the Colby statistic, interactions between the two agents were either synergistic or additive. Rates as low as 0.25 mg L super(-1) 2,4-D combined with 0.16 ml L super(-1) M. terrestris reduced shoot biomass more than 90%. To achieve similar results with herbicide alone required 2,4-D rates of 1.00 mg L super(-1). The highest rate of M. terrestris applied alone reduced plant biomass by only 79%. Combined treatments effectively suppressed perennial rootstock which would reduce the potential for weed re-establishment. When 2,4-D and M. terrestris were applied as one treatment, a 24-hr contact time was sufficient to effectively control Eurasian watermilfoil. The ability to achieve weed control while minimizing herbicide rate and contact time requirements would improve management in systems with flowing water and where chemical impacts on sensitive species are of concern. These data support the potential for effective integrated weed management strategies using biological and chemical agents in aquatic environments. JF - Journal of Aquatic Plant Management AU - Nelson, L S AU - Shearer, J F AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA, Linda.S.Nelson@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/01// PY - 2005 DA - Jan 2005 SP - 29 EP - 34 PB - Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc., PO Box 1477 Lehigh Acres FL 33970 USA VL - 43 IS - 1 SN - 0146-6623, 0146-6623 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Freshwater KW - A 01014:Others KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - Q1 01485:Species interactions: pests and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17643556?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%3Amicrobiologya&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Aquatic+Plant+Management&rft.atitle=2%2C4-D+and+Mycoleptodiscus+terrestris+for+Control+of+Eurasian+Watermilfoil&rft.au=Nelson%2C+L+S%3BShearer%2C+J+F&rft.aulast=Nelson&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=29&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 - 2007-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Freshwater ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Water tariffs in Lebanon: a review and perspective AN - 17630839; 6398174 AB - Lebanon is increasingly suffering from shortage and mismanagement of water, which is becoming a commodity of considerable value owing to the inadequacy of supply to meet the needs of potential users. Water authorities and establishments fix tariffs that users have to pay to obtain water. In fact, these tariffs should represent the total costs of providing good quality water in adequate quantities. However, currently domestic water tariffs in Lebanon are mostly flat and not enough to cover the salaries of the employees and the charges of minor maintenance works. Domestic water is sold at a nominal daily flow where rates are lower for smaller towns and increase proportionally. In addition, not all subscribers are actually paying their dues and the water authorities are unable to control and limit illegal connections. As for irrigation practices, water is generally priced at a flat rate or at rates that are associated with the area that the users are allowed to invest in. This paper describes the different aspects of the water tariff structures in Lebanon, provides a review of the current water tariffs available for the different sectors and presents recommendations and ideas for a new water tariff system in the newly formed water authorities. JF - Water Policy AU - Chatila, J G AD - Institute for Water Resources and Environmental Technology (IWRET), Department of Civil Engineering, Lebanese American University, P.O. Box 36, Byblos, Lebanon, jchatila@lau.edu.lb Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 215 EP - 226 VL - 7 IS - 2 SN - 1366-7017, 1366-7017 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17630839?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Assamodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Policy&rft.atitle=Water+tariffs+in+Lebanon%3A+a+review+and+perspective&rft.au=Chatila%2C+J+G&rft.aulast=Chatila&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=215&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Policy&rft.issn=13667017&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Construction of an Offshore Bird Nesting Island at Savannah Harbor AN - 17628345; 6265593 AB - The US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District and the Georgia Department of Transportation, in its role as the non-Federal sponsor for the Savannah Harbor Navigation Project have constructed an island north of the entrance to the Savannah River. The island is part of the wetland mitigation plan developed to replace the functions and values of wetlands that would be lost during development of a new confined disposal facility in the harbor. The 4-acre island provides rare bare ground nesting habitat for colonial shorebirds. It began being used as a resting area by various waterbirds and shorebirds as soon as the island emerged from the ocean. This paper describes the rationale behind that action, some of the design considerations, and initial information on the island's success. JF - Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference AU - Bailey, William A2 - Hatcher, KJ (ed) Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology Athens GA 30602-1619 USA, [URL:http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/JEA] SN - 0935835091 KW - Birds KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Brackish KW - Freshwater KW - Q5 01523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - SW 4070:Ecological impact of water development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17628345?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=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bailey%2C+William&rft.aulast=Bailey&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0935835091&rft.btitle=Construction+of+an+Offshore+Bird+Nesting+Island+at+Savannah+Harbor&rft.title=Construction+of+an+Offshore+Bird+Nesting+Island+at+Savannah+Harbor&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Chattahoochee River Restoration: Removal of City Mills and Eagle and Phenix Dams AN - 17626918; 6265609 AB - The proposed aquatic ecosystem restoration project consists of breaching the Eagle and Phenix Dam (450 foot breach width) and the City Mills Dam (350 foot breach width) to restore a total of approximately 2.3 miles of the Chattahoochee River to an unimpounded condition. The Eagle and Phenix Dam and the City Mills Dam are located in Muscogee County, Georgia, and Russell County, Alabama, on the Chattahoochee River in the cities of Columbus, Georgia and Phenix City, Alabama. The proposed project reach on the Chattahoochee River extends from the tailwater area below the Eagle and Phenix Dam upstream to tailwater of the North Highlands Dam. This project is being developed under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 206 Environmental Restoration Program, by the Mobile District, along with the non-federal sponsor cities of Columbus, Georgia and Phenix City, Alabama. JF - Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference AU - Eubanks, Michael J AU - Buckalew, James O A2 - Hatcher, KJ (ed) Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology Athens GA 30602-1619 USA, [URL:http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/JEA] SN - 0935835091 KW - dam removal KW - environmental restoration KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Freshwater KW - Q5 01523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - SW 4070:Ecological impact of water development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17626918?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=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Eubanks%2C+Michael+J%3BBuckalew%2C+James+O&rft.aulast=Eubanks&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0935835091&rft.btitle=Chattahoochee+River+Restoration%3A+Removal+of+City+Mills+and+Eagle+and+Phenix+Dams&rft.title=Chattahoochee+River+Restoration%3A+Removal+of+City+Mills+and+Eagle+and+Phenix+Dams&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Identifying Impacts to Estuarine Wetlands from the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project AN - 17618659; 6262213 AB - The US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District is leading a cooperative interagency evaluation of the environmental effects of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project. The team is developing and applying state-of-the-art tools to identify potential impacts from the proposed project alternatives and various means to mitigate for any adverse effects from those alternatives. This paper describes the tools that have been developed and how they are being applied to provide the public and the decision-makers with the best information possible on the viability of this project. JF - Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference AU - Bailey, William AU - EuDaly, Ed AU - Miller, Gerald AU - Brownell, Prescott A2 - Hatcher, KJ (ed) Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology Athens GA 30602-1619 USA, [URL:http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/JEA] SN - 0935835091 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Marine KW - Brackish KW - SW 4070:Ecological impact of water development KW - Q5 01521:Mechanical and natural changes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17618659?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=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bailey%2C+William%3BEuDaly%2C+Ed%3BMiller%2C+Gerald%3BBrownell%2C+Prescott&rft.aulast=Bailey&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0935835091&rft.btitle=Identifying+Impacts+to+Estuarine+Wetlands+from+the+Savannah+Harbor+Expansion+Project&rft.title=Identifying+Impacts+to+Estuarine+Wetlands+from+the+Savannah+Harbor+Expansion+Project&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Process identification at a slow-moving landslide in the Vorarlberg Alps AN - 17612172; 6222200 AB - A fine-grained slope that exhibits slow movement rates was investigated to understand how geohydrological processes contribute to a consecutive development of mass movements in the Vorarlberg Alps, Austria. For that purpose intensive hydrometeorological, hydrogeological and geotechnical observations as well as surveying of surface movement rates were conducted during 1998-2001. Subsurface water dynamics at the creeping slope turned out to be dominated by a three- dimensional pressure system. The pressure reaction is triggered by fast infiltration of surface water and subsequent lateral water flow in the south- western part of the hillslope. The related pressure signal was shown to propagate further downhill, causing fast reactions of the piezometric head at 5.5 m depth on a daily time scale. The observed pressure reactions might belong to a temporary hillslope water body that extends further downhill. The related buoyancy forces could be one of the driving forces for the mass movement. A physically based hydrological model was adopted to model simultaneously surface and subsurface water dynamics including evapotranspiration and runoff production. It was possible to reproduce surface runoff and observed pressure reactions in principle. However, as soil hydraulic functions were only estimated on pedotransfer functions, a quantitative comparison between observed and simulated subsurface dynamics is not feasible. Nevertheless, the results suggest that it is possible to reconstruct important spatial structures based on sparse observations in the field which allow reasonable simulations with a physically based hydrological model. JF - Hydrological Processes AU - Lindenmaier, Falk AU - Zehe, Erwin AU - Dittfurth, Angela AU - Ihringer, JUrgen AD - Institute for Water Resources Management and Rural Engineering, University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany, lindenmaier@iwk.uka.de Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 1635 EP - 1651 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Baffins Lane Chichester W. Sussex PO19 1UD UK, [mailto:customer@wiley.co.uk], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/] VL - 19 IS - 8 SN - 0885-6087, 0885-6087 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - SW 0870:Erosion and sedimentation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17612172?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Hydrological+Processes&rft.atitle=Process+identification+at+a+slow-moving+landslide+in+the+Vorarlberg+Alps&rft.au=Lindenmaier%2C+Falk%3BZehe%2C+Erwin%3BDittfurth%2C+Angela%3BIhringer%2C+JUrgen&rft.aulast=Lindenmaier&rft.aufirst=Falk&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1635&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hydrological+Processes&rft.issn=08856087&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fhyp.5592 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5592 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Earthquakes and soil liquefaction in flood stories of the ancient Near East AN - 17610395; 6135703 AB - Flood stories in the Hebrew Bible and the Koran appear to be derived from earlier flood stories like those in the Gilgamesh Epic and still earlier in the Atrahasis. All would have their source from floods of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. The Gilgamesh Epic magnifies the catastrophe by having the flood begin with winds, lightning, and a shattering of the earth, or earthquake. Elsewhere in Gilgamesh, an earthquake can be shown to have produced pits and chasms along with gushing of water. It is commonly observed that earthquake shaking causes water to gush from the ground and leaves pits and open fissures. The process is known as soil liquefaction. Earthquake is also a possible explanation for the verse "all the fountains of the great deep (were) broken up" that began the Flood in Genesis. Traditionally, the "great deep" was the ocean bottom. A more recent translation substitutes "burst" for "broken up" in describing the fountains, suggesting that they erupted at the ground surface and were caused by an earthquake with soil liquefaction. Another relation between soil liquefaction and the Flood is found in the Koran where the Flood starts when "water gushed forth from the oven". Soil liquefaction observed erupting preferentially into houses during an earthquake provides a logical interpretation if the oven is seen as a tiny house. A case can be made that earthquakes with soil liquefaction are embedded in all of these flood stories. JF - Engineering Geology AU - Krinitzsky, EL AD - Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Engineering Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180- 6199, USA, Ellis.L.Krinitzsky@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005/01// PY - 2005 DA - Jan 2005 SP - 295 EP - 311 PB - Elsevier Science Publishers VL - 76 IS - 3-4 SN - 0013-7952, 0013-7952 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - SW 6040:Soil mechanics KW - Q2 02270:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17610395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Engineering+Geology&rft.atitle=Earthquakes+and+soil+liquefaction+in+flood+stories+of+the+ancient+Near+East&rft.au=Krinitzsky%2C+EL&rft.aulast=Krinitzsky&rft.aufirst=EL&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=295&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Engineering+Geology&rft.issn=00137952&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.enggeo.2004.07.027 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2004.07.027 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Benefits to groundwater quality by diverting construction and demolition wastes from landfills AN - 17411490; 6510045 AB - The objective of this report is to evaluate the effects to groundwater by diversion of solid wastes from landfills. The focus is directed to the diversion of solid wastes from construction and demolition landfills associated with deconstruction and demolition projects. The environmental benefits of this diversion are discussed including groundwater contamination issues. Additionally, diversion methods and techniques are presented. JF - International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management AU - Smith, ED AU - Bishop, B S AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 9005, Champaign, IL 61822, USA, Edgar.D.Smith@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 230 EP - 245 VL - 5 IS - 2-3 SN - 1466-2132, 1466-2132 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Construction KW - Landfills KW - Groundwater Pollution KW - Solid Wastes KW - Solid wastes KW - Water Pollution Control KW - Waste disposal sites KW - Construction industry wastes KW - Groundwater pollution KW - Diversion KW - Benefits KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality KW - P 4000:WASTE MANAGEMENT UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17411490?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=International+Journal+of+Environmental+Technology+and+Management&rft.atitle=Benefits+to+groundwater+quality+by+diverting+construction+and+demolition+wastes+from+landfills&rft.au=Smith%2C+ED%3BBishop%2C+B+S&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=ED&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=230&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Environmental+Technology+and+Management&rft.issn=14662132&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 - Landfills; Waste disposal sites; Groundwater pollution; Construction industry wastes; Solid wastes; Water Pollution Control; Construction; Groundwater Pollution; Solid Wastes; Benefits; Diversion ER - TY - CONF T1 - Wilmington district Corps of Engineers: Oyster restoration case studies in North Carolina AN - 17338031; 6264867 AB - The Wilmington District's early restoration projects mitigated impacts from traditional Corps navigation or flood control projects. Now ecosystem restoration is a high priority for the Corps, and the Wilmington District, in partnership with the state (North Carolina), is applying expanded authorities to restore aquatic ecosystems. Our restoration designs have evolved to incorporate ecosystem concepts and consideration of site context to promote ecologic functions and sustainable projects that fit into the matrix of the surrounding ecosystem. Where earlier restorations focused on marsh grass establishment, we now incorporate multiple habitats including forest, shrubs, marshes, SAV, and oysters to increase ecologic value. Our first ecosystem project successfully restored estuarine resources in the Newport River (1995) at a historic upland disposal island. Field inspections there in 2004 found this early ecosystem design provided outstanding sustainability as indicated by continued expansion of the marsh and regeneration of oysters over a nine-year period. Recently, we used a continuing authorities program, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Authority (Section 206) to restore marsh, SAV, oysters, and maritime forest at Festival Park near Manteo, North Carolina and have approval to begin feasibility studies on three additional 206 projects. Our general investigation (GI) authority historically used to investigate basin-wide solutions for flooding and navigation problems, and can now also address restoration needs at the watershed scale. We are currently in the early planning phase of a watershed study including the Tar River basin and Pamlico Sound that, in addition to flood control, will investigate restoration alternatives potentially including large-scale oyster reef, wetland, and stream restoration. JF - Journal of Shellfish Research AU - Wilson, C R Y1 - 2005/01// PY - 2005 DA - Jan 2005 SP - 340 PB - National Shellfisheries Association, [URL:http://www.shellfish.org/pubs/jsrtoc/toc.htm] VL - 24 IS - 1 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts KW - Marine KW - Brackish KW - O 1070:Ecology/Community Studies KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - Q1 01463:Habitat community studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17338031?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+Shellfish+Research&rft.atitle=Wilmington+district+Corps+of+Engineers%3A+Oyster+restoration+case+studies+in+North+Carolina&rft.au=Wilson%2C+C+R&rft.aulast=Wilson&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=340&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Shellfish+Research&rft.issn=07308000&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Assessment of Saltwater Migration Through the Upper Floridan Confining Unit in the Savannah Harbor Area AN - 17335163; 6261889 AB - Pumping in the Savannah vicinity has decreased the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer and induced a cone of depression, and saltwater is assumed to leak downward through the confining layer toward the aquifer. Marine seismic sub-bottom profiling, core drilling, and porewater geochemistry data collected as part of the ongoing Supplemental Studies to Determine Ground-water Impacts to the Upper Floridan Aquifer were used to better define the stratigraphy and hydraulic characteristics of the confining layer. The current study focuses primarily on the "area of concern" from Field's Cut to approximately two miles offshore of Tybee Island, where the confining layer naturally thins and several deep buried paleochannels have cut further down into the confining layer. The results of the porewater data derived from this work are believed to demonstrate the depth to which seawater has penetrated downward through the confining layer and indicate that chloride breakthrough has occurred in some locations along the Savannah River channel. JF - Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference AU - Smith, HCardwell AU - McIntosh, Margarett G A2 - Hatcher, KJ (ed) Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology Athens GA 30602-1619 USA, [URL:http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/JEA] SN - 0935835091 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - SW 5010:Network design UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17335163?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Smith%2C+HCardwell%3BMcIntosh%2C+Margarett+G&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=HCardwell&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0935835091&rft.btitle=Assessment+of+Saltwater+Migration+Through+the+Upper+Floridan+Confining+Unit+in+the+Savannah+Harbor+Area&rft.title=Assessment+of+Saltwater+Migration+Through+the+Upper+Floridan+Confining+Unit+in+the+Savannah+Harbor+Area&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Restoration Status of the Robust Redhorse AN - 17334887; 6261436 AB - In 1995, a public and private cooperative effort was initiated to restore the robust redhorse to its historic range. The participants banded together as the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee. The committee holds an annual meeting to review the progress that has been made and prioritize its efforts for the next year. This paper summarizes a major session at the committee's last meeting, including (1) reviewing the progress that has been made to date, (2) summarizing what has been learned about the species, (3) reviewing the ultimate restoration goals, and (4) prioritizing the efforts for the future. JF - Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference AU - Bailey, William A2 - Hatcher, KJ (ed) Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 PB - University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology Athens GA 30602-1619 USA, [URL:http://guallart.dac.uga.edu/JEA] SN - 0935835091 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - SW 0810:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17334887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Bailey%2C+William&rft.aulast=Bailey&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0935835091&rft.btitle=Restoration+Status+of+the+Robust+Redhorse&rft.title=Restoration+Status+of+the+Robust+Redhorse&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bubbles and waves description of self-aerated spillway flow TT - Description des ecoulements a bulles et vagues sur deversoir auto-aere AN - 17132083; 6757043 AB - The "continuum" description of self-aerated spillway flow has adequately served to describe spillway bulking, but encounters difficulties when applied to other physical phenomena, such as cavitation and gas transfer. The continuum description is adapted to separate air being transported by the flow as bubbles ("entrained" air), and air transported with the flow in the roughness or waves of the water surface ("entrapped" air). Results from flume experiments on aerated flow are used to develop an analysis procedure and mathematical description of entrained and entrapped air for flow along a spillway face. Entrapped air is found to be constant at a void ratio, with a vertical distribution analogous to the "intermittent" region of a turbulent boundary layer. Entrained air gradually increases to a maximum value depending on slope. Cain's dimensionless distance is used to collapse entrained air data from several unit discharges with the same slope to a single relationship. The analysis procedure and dimensionless parameter provide a means of analyzing a large store of additional literature data. Observations from a full-scale spillway provide verification of the procedure.Original Abstract: La description d'un "continuum" d'ecoulement sur deversoir auto-aere a bien servi a decrire le gonflement global, mais on rencontre des difficultes pour l'appliquer a d'autres phenomenes physiques, tels que le transfert de gaz et la cavitation. La description d'un continuum est adaptee a de l'air transporte par l'ecoulement sous forme de bulles (air "entraine"), differente de l'air transporte par l'ecoulement dans la rugosite ou les vagues de la surface de l'eau (air "enferme"). Les resultats des experiences en canal sur l'ecoulement aere sont utilises pour developper un procede d'analyse et une description mathematique de d'air entraine et enferme pour l'ecoulement le long d'un coursier de deversoir. De l'air enferme est trouve constant pour un rapport de vide, avec une distribution verticale analogue a la region "intermittente" d'une couche limite turbulente. L'air entraine croit graduellement jusqu'a une valeur maximum dependant de la pente. La distance sans dimensions de Cain est utilisee pour rassembler, dans une formule unique, les donnees d'air entraine de plusieurs debits unitaires avec la meme pente. Le procede d'analyse et le parametre sans dimensions fournissent les moyens d'analyser un grand stock de donnees additionnelles de la litterature. Les observations d'un deversoir grandeur nature fournissent la verification du procede. JF - Journal of Hydraulic Research/Journal de Recherches Hydraulique AU - Wilhelms, S C AU - Gulliver, J S AD - Engineering Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 522 VL - 43 IS - 5 SN - 0022-1686, 0022-1686 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - Void Ratio KW - Cavitation KW - Flumes KW - Spillways KW - Vertical Distribution KW - Boundary Layers KW - Collapse KW - Waves KW - Slopes KW - Bubbles KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17132083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Research%2FJournal+de+Recherches+Hydraulique&rft.atitle=Bubbles+and+waves+description+of+self-aerated+spillway+flow&rft.au=Wilhelms%2C+S+C%3BGulliver%2C+J+S&rft.aulast=Wilhelms&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=522&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Research%2FJournal+de+Recherches+Hydraulique&rft.issn=00221686&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Void Ratio; Flumes; Cavitation; Spillways; Boundary Layers; Vertical Distribution; Collapse; Waves; Slopes; Bubbles ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Gas transfer, cavitation, and bulking in self-aerated spillway flow TT - Transfert de gaz, cavitation, et gonflement dans les ecoulements de deversoirs auto-aeres AN - 17130742; 6757042 AB - Air entrainment in free-surface spillway flows has been described in a companion paper with two concepts: "entrained air," which is air being transported by the flow as bubbles: and "entrapped air," which is the air transported with the flow in the roughness or waves of the water surface. This paper shows the application of this "bubbles and waves" description of entrained and entrapped air for flow at any location along a spillway face to: (a) estimate the bulking of flow due to insufflation of air, (b) estimate the location where aeration is sufficient to eliminate cavitation damage, and (c) compute the oxygen absorption in self-aerated flow. The bubbles and waves description of self-aerated flow is essential to the accurate computation of gas transfer on a spillway surface, and can provide the appropriate bulking and cavitation computations for spillway design and management.Original Abstract: L'entrainement d'air dans des ecoulements sur deversoir a surface libre ont ete decrits dans un article associe avec deux concepts: "l'air entraine," qui est l'air transporte par l'ecoulement sous forme de bulles: et "l'air enferme." qui est l'air transporte avec l'ecoulement dans la rugosite ou les vagues a la surface de l'eau. Cet article decrit le role de l'air entraine et enferme de ces "bulles et vagues" tout au long de l'ecoulement d'un deversoir pour: (a) estimer le gonflement global de l'ecoulement du a l'insufflation d'air, (b) evaluer l'endroit ou l'aeration permet d'eliminer des dommages de cavitation, et (c) calculer l'absorption de l'oxygene dans des ecoulements auto-aeres. La description des bulles et des vagues des ecoulements auto-aeres est essentielle au calcul precis du transfert de gaz a la surface du deversoir, et permet les calculs de gonflement global et de cavitation pour la conception et la gestion du deversoir. JF - Journal of Hydraulic Research/Journal de Recherches Hydraulique AU - Wilhelms, S C AU - Gulliver, J S AD - Engineering Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 532 VL - 43 IS - 5 SN - 0022-1686, 0022-1686 KW - Water Resources Abstracts KW - Damage KW - Oxygen KW - Cavitation KW - Air Entrainment KW - Spillways KW - Absorption KW - Waves KW - Aeration KW - Bubbles KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17130742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Research%2FJournal+de+Recherches+Hydraulique&rft.atitle=Gas+transfer%2C+cavitation%2C+and+bulking+in+self-aerated+spillway+flow&rft.au=Wilhelms%2C+S+C%3BGulliver%2C+J+S&rft.aulast=Wilhelms&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=532&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Research%2FJournal+de+Recherches+Hydraulique&rft.issn=00221686&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Oxygen; Damage; Cavitation; Air Entrainment; Spillways; Absorption; Waves; Aeration; Bubbles ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GENERAL RE-EVALUATION REPORT FOR POPLAR ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROJECT, CHESAPEAKE BAY, TALBOT COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 16357037; 11768 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 and revised measures are proposed. 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 erosion 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 were 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. A supplemental EIS of June 2005 re-evaluated 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, which continues to be the recommended alternative in this final EIS and supplement, would involve a northern lateral expansion of approximately 575 acres of remote island habitat that incorporates an open water embayment and includes approximately 29 percent wetland, 47 percent upland habitat, and 24 percent open water (embayment) 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 infauna 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and draft supplement, see 95-0594D, Volume 19, Number 6 and 05-0568D, Volume 29, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 050417, Volume 1--676 pages, Volume 2 (Appendices A & B)--382 pages, Volume 3 (Appendices C-O)--949 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 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/16357037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GENERAL+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, DELONG MOUNTAIN TERMINAL, ALASKA. AN - 16356900; 11722 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of navigation improvements at DeLong Mountain Terminal (DMT), Alaska are proposed. The DMT is an industrial site at Portsite in the Northwest Artic Borough, located approximately 60 miles north f Kotzebue on the southeastern coast of Chukchi Sea. Portsite is connected to the Red Dog Min, the world's largest zinc-producing mine, by the only major road in the region. Neither the mine nor the communities in the region are connected by road to each other or to a larger road system. Several alternatives to resolve this situation, including the construction of roads to existing land- and sea-based infrastructure and the construction of new infrastructure at and away from Portsite, were initially considered. Of those alternatives considered, this draft EIS has retained for consideration No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. The proposed action, which is also the preferred alternative, known as the Trestle-Channel Alternative, would Involve construction of a 1,450-foot-long trestle from shore to a new offshore loading platform and dredging of a 3.5-mile channel from the loading platform out to the natural bottom contour of 53 feet below mean lower low water. This would allow navigation by bulk freighters and tanker ships. The facilities would also increase ore concentrate loading efficiency and allow direct offloading of fuel from tanker ships. Approximately 8.1 million cubic yards of dredged material would be placed in a 5,600-acre rectangular disposal area offshore of Portsite. Material from future maintenance dredging would be dumped in the same disposal site. Cost of dredging the federal channel and turning basin is estimated at $75 million; annual maintenance costs are estimated at $1.25 million. Total cost for the non-federal sponsor project components is estimated at $155.5 million, while annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $6.5 million. The project would generate estimated annual benefits valued at $26.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal would reduce the costs of transporting fuel used in northwestern Alaska and ease the loading of ore concentrate from the Red Dog Mine. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and long-term operation of the proposed facilities would affect organisms and habitat over approximately 6,500 acres of sea bottom in the Portsite area. Long-term impacts would not be significant with respect to any biological resource of concern. Subsistence harvest of most resources would be unaffected, but there could be local impacts to harvest potential of some marine mammal species. JF - EPA number: 050441, Volume 1-517 pages, Volume 2--339 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Ice Environments KW - Marine Mammals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Navigation KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Alaska UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16356900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+DELONG+MOUNTAIN+TERMINAL%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+DELONG+MOUNTAIN+TERMINAL%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS. AN - 16355291; 11776 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane fully controlled access highway, designed to interstate standards, on new location bypassing existing US 412 north of Springdale in southern Benton and northern Washington counties, Arkansas is proposed. Major communities in the study area include Springdale, Tontitown, Elm Springs, Bethel Heights, Lowell, Sonora, Rogers, Bentonville, Fayetteville, and Cave Springs. US 412 is part of a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor running east and west across northern Arkansas. The highway, to be known as the Springdale Northern Bypass, would extend 19.8 to 20.6 miles, beginning at the interchange with existing US 412 west of Tontitown where the highway presently transitions from four to five lanes and extending to an interchange on existing US 412 between the Springdale eastern city limits and Beaver Lake. Both toll and non-toll funding alternatives are under consideration for each alignment. A May 2004 draft supplement to the draft EIS of January 2002 considered two alignments that were not considered in the draft EIS as well as the previously considered alignments, bringing the total number of alignment alternatives to four. A preferred alternative and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The bypass would function as a link in the U.S. 412 High Priority Corridor as well as a link in the state and regional transportation system. Separation of through and local traffic on U.S. 412 would improve safety, circulation patterns, connectivity, intermodal access, and reduce traffic in the city of Springdale. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of numerous residential owners and tenants as well as several businesses and, possibly, a small number of non-profit organizations. Residences owned by minorities, low-income households, and the elderly would be displaced. The project would also displace farmland, including prime farmland and farmland of state importance, woodland. The project would traverse streams and springs and encroach on floodplain, including floodway area and special flood hazard areas. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 and the draft supplement, see 02-0198D, Volume 26, Number 2 and see 04-0455D, Volume 28, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 050434, 635 pages and maps, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-01-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arkansas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Little Rock, Arkansas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEGMENT OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY NO. 8, FROM SR 385 IN MILLINGTON TO I-155/YS 51 IN DYERSBURG, SELBY, TIPTON, LAUDERDALE, AND DYER COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 16355062; 11703 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 65-mile segment of transcontinental interstate highway (Interstate 69 (I-69)) beginning at State Route (SR) 385 (Paul Barrett Parkway) in Millinton, north to I-155 at Dyersburg in Selby, Tipton, Lauderdale counties, Tennessee is proposed. The facility currently serving the corridor will be heavily congested from the US 51 Bypass around Dyersbjurg to the I-155 with an unacceptably low level of service by the year 2010. By 2030, virtually all segments of US 51 would be congested, with several segments reaching the lowest gradable level of service. The proposed four-lane, controlled access facility would constitute an independent utility segment of Corridor 18, a congressionally mandated high priority transportation corridor, designated as I-69. Portions of the roadway would follow a new alignment, but one section of one build alternative would following existing US 51. Ten build alternatives, which constitute corridor options and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Depending on the build alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $492.4 million to $601.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to completing an unfinished portion of High Priority Corridor 18 and I-69. Local motorists would benefit from the upgrading of the currently substandard level of service along US 51 within the study corridor in an area where modal connections are substandard to inadequate. Economic development in the region served by the facility would be enhanced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, rights-of-way development would displace 59 to 111 residences, two to four businesses, 11.9 to 100.4 acres of wetlands, and 328.5 to 844 acres of floodplain. Vegetation and habitat, including wetland habitat, associated with the displaced natural soils and waters would be permanently lost, and development spurred by the presence of high-profile, high-volume highway would displace additional natural and social resources. Access to some locations that currently are open to access from the facility would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050387, 331 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-05-01-D KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FYS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=SEGMENT+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+NO.+8%2C+FROM+SR+385+IN+MILLINGTON+TO+I-155%2FYS+51+IN+DYERSBURG%2C+SELBY%2C+TIPTON%2C+LAUDERDALE%2C+AND+DYER+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MONTAUK POINT, NEW YORK: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION FEASIBILITY REPORT. AN - 16355002; 11699 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction plan for Montauk Point, East Hampton, Suffolk County, New York is proposed. The study area lies between the Atlantic Ocean and Block Island Sound at the eastern most end of the south form of Long Island. Existing storm protection structures are not entirely effective against serious storm surges and are affected by normal littoral erosion and wave action. If allowed to continue, progressive instability of the Montauk Point bluff would result in the irrecoverable loss of the Montauk Point Lighthouse and its associated structures, along with local archaeological resources. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), and several sub-alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternatives include the following possible structural features: a stone revetment, an offshore breakwater combined with beach fill, T-groins combined with beach fill, beach fill alone, and relocation of the lighthouse. The stone revetment would constitute the most reliable and cost-effective structural solution; hence, this approach constitutes the tentatively selected alternative. Specifically, the alternative would involve the construction of a 840-foot-long stone revetment, with a crest width of 40 feet at an elevation of 25 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum; placement of 12.6 tons of quarried stone armor unit from the crest of the revetment down to the embedded toe; placement of three layers of four- to five-ton armor units atop the splash apron; and provision of a heavily embedded toe incorporated to protect against breaking waves, provide long-term stone stability and scour at the toe of the structure. First cost of the selected plan is estimated at $13.7 million at October 2004 price levels, resulting in an annual cost of $887,300 and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.78. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revetment system and associated facilities would protect the lighthouse and associated support structures and archaeological resources against erosion caused by normal hydrologic actions and, particularly, by extreme storm events. Shoreline erosion in adjacent areas would also be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and placement of the revetment would result in the disturbance of sediment, degrading water and destroying sensible benthic organisms, and the temporary and permanent displacement of benthic habitat. Shoreline and beach habitat would also be lost, and recreational access to the Atlantic Ocean would be decreased significantly. Normal littoral patterns would be disrupted permanently. LEGAL MANDATES: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 050377, 335 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Breakwaters KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Historic Sites KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Recreation Resources KW - Shores KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - New York KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MONTAUK+POINT%2C+NEW+YORK%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+FEASIBILITY+REPORT.&rft.title=MONTAUK+POINT%2C+NEW+YORK%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+FEASIBILITY+REPORT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New York, New York; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CANANN VALLEY INSTITUTE 4 OFFICE COMPLEX NEAR DAVIS, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 16352330; 11723 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new office complex at the 3,221-acre Canaan Valley Institute (CVI) Complex near Davis, West Virginia is proposed. CVI undertakes research and professional and public educati9on focusing on ecological and environmental issues, particularly with respect to ecological restoration. Existing CVI offices do not provide sufficient space or facilities to address the mission of the organization. The proposed facility development would be funded by a grant from the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration. Facilities to be provided include offices, classrooms, laboratories, a 250-seat auditorium, parking facilities, outdoor classrooms, and interpretive areas. As part of the project, an access road would be constructed leading from a major highway to the complex. The facility would be a "zero-discharge" installation, incorporating composting and living machine/drip irrigation systems to treat solid and liquid wastes. In addition to the No-Build Alternative, this draft EIS, addresses three facilities expansion site alternative and seven access road routing alternatives. Facility Site 1 (Rocky Point) lies on the peak of Rocky Point at an elevation of 3,600 feet. A flat area at the peak of the mountain would provide adequate space for the location of the facility proposed. Facility Site 2 (Bearden Know) lies on the peak of Bearden Knob at an elevation of 3,700 feet. The flat area at the peak is much smaller than the area provided at sites 1 and 2. Facility Site 3 (Yellow Creek) lies at an elevation of 3,200 feet near the West Virginia (WV) 93 crossing of Beaver Creek; once again the topography would provide an adequate space for the proposed facility. The preferred access road routing alternative routing alternative (Alternative G) would provide access from the northeast off WV 93. The road would begin approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the WV 93 bridge over Beaver Creek and extend northeast of a large wetland adjacent to Beaver Creek and southeast to the access to the Yellow Creek Site. Depending on the facility location alternative and access route selected, estimated cost of access road construction ranges from $547,400 to $8.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide modern office, teaching, and research facilities for a growing number of Canaan Valley Institute employees and researchers; provide students and researchers with alarge tract of terrestrial and aquatic habitat for outdoor classrooms and research; and provide a unique experience for visitors with acess to outdoor classrooms. Outdoor classrooms would provdie a unique experience for visitors with access to outdoor classrooms. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The physical footprint of the complex would displace four acres of natural area, while the access road would disturb another five to 20 acres. Habitat for Indiana bat would decline by as much as 18.2 acres and research areas would suffer up to 12.3 acres of long-term impacts. From 6.9 to 41.7 acres of terrestrial habitat would be lost. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 050442, ges, Appendices--720 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Research and Development KW - Buildings KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - West Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16352330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CANANN+VALLEY+INSTITUTE+4+OFFICE+COMPLEX+NEAR+DAVIS%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=CANANN+VALLEY+INSTITUTE+4+OFFICE+COMPLEX+NEAR+DAVIS%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LIBERTY STATE PARK ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, NEW YORK. AN - 16344726; 11737 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Hudson-Raritan Estuary within the boundaries of Liberty State Park, New Jersey is proposed. With the Manhattan skyline, the Status of Liberty, and Ellis Island as a spectacular backdrop, Liberty State Park is both a unique public resource and one of New Jersey's most dramatic parks. The site accommodates over 5.0 million visitors per year, two educational facilities, and relationships with several universities, providing an unparalleled forum for the study and enjoyment of public open space. The park is also an important initial step in an ambitious restoration process for the Port District section of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary ecosystem restoration study, cost shared with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Salt marshesm, which once lined the harbor, were gradually eliminated during the industrial revolution. Endangered remnant pocket marshes, like those within the park, exist primarily between piers throughout the harbor. The remnant marshes provide invaluable wildlife habitat in the center of the most densely population area of the country. The major components of the restoration project would include the creation of approximately 46 acres of salt marsh, the creation and/or enhancement of approximately 26 acres of freshwater wetlands, the creation of approximately 50 Acres of war weather grasslands, and the enhancement of approximately 10 acres of urban successional northern hardwoods and maritime shrub assemblages. Initial cost of plan implementation is estimated $32.2 million, while annualized cost, amortized over 50 years, is estimated at $2.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The restoration of the 234-acre interior section of the park, currently fenced off and inaccessible, would provide substantial benefits to all 1,121 acres of the park by linking previously developed and restored, but isolated, components of the park into one cohesive whole. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Biocontaminants could be released by ground and marsh disturbance within the site, potentially releasing these toxins into the harbor and bringing those hazardous materials into contact with humans. Freshwater wetlands could be threatened by saltwater intrusion, though precautions would be taken to prevent this. An expected increase in visitation following completion of the initial stages of the project and opening of the new features to the public would place stress on the currently isolated marshlands. LEGAL MANDATES: National Estuary Act and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 050466, Volume 1--191 pages, Volume 2--752 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Estuaries KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Hudson River KW - New Jersey KW - Raritan River KW - National Estuary Act, Compliance KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16344726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HUDSON-RARITAN+ESTUARY%2C+LIBERTY+STATE+PARK+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=HUDSON-RARITAN+ESTUARY%2C+LIBERTY+STATE+PARK+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New York, New York; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAN WATER COALITION SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM, LAKE MEAD RECREATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16343235; 11764 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Clean Water Coalition (CWC) Systems Conveyance and Operations Program (SCOP) for the Lake Meade Recreational Area of Boulder County, Nevada is proposed. The quantity of effluent treated and discharged in the Las Vegas Valley (Valley) will increase as the population of the Valley increases. Forecasts indicate that a combined maximum month flow of approximately 453 million gallons per day (mgd) of municipal wastewater will need to be treated and managed in the Las Vegas Valley by 2050 (Black & Veatch 2004a). The treatment and conveyance facilities must accommodate the additional flows while continuing to meet current or future water quality standards for the Las Vegas Wash, Las Vegas Bay, and Lake Mead. Currently, highly treated effluent is discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at the existing discharge locations. The City of Las Vegas, Clark County Water Reclamation District, and City of Henderson comprise the CWC, which was created to address the management of the increasing wastewater flows in the Las Vegas Valley, has proposed the SCOP. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to surface water hydrology, groundwater, water quality, biological resources/endangered species, cultural resources, recreation, land use, air quality, noise, and socioeconomics. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Each alternative would provide a system of pipelines and tunnels that discharges highly treated wastewater effluent to an alternate location in Lake Mead. The SCOP system would be designed to collect the treated effluent flows from the three treatment facilities, for conveyance to an area in the lower Colorado River system, while the majority of the flows bypass the lower Las Vegas Wash. The SCOP would be located in Clark County, Nevada The system would include activities and infrastructure that would be located on lands owned and/or managed by the City of Las Vegas, City of Henderson, Clark County, United States (U.S.) Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The action alternatives include the Boulder Islands North Alternative, Boulder Islands South Alternative, and Las Vegas Bay Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the pipeline would not be constructed. Highly treated effluent would continue to be discharged to the Las Vegas Wash at the existing discharge locations. The three agencies currently responsible for municipal wastewater treatment and discharge would expand and optimize their facilities to handle the increasing quantities of wastewater through 2050. Facility additions would occur on lands currently owned by the cities and county. Under the Boulder Islands North Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the vicinity of Boulder Islands. The Boulder Islands North Alternative includes the generation of electricity at a hydroelectric generation facility to be located on NPS land. Under the Boulder Islands South Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the vicinity of Boulder Islands, but there would be no power generation facility. Under the Las Vegas Bay Alternative, a pipeline would be constructed that collects and transports highly treated effluent from the three treatment facilities to a receiving area in the Las Vegas Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SCOP would meet current and future water quality standards for known pollutants, and as yet unknown standards for additional contaminants that may be regulated in the future; protect and enhance the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) by continuing to meet beneficial uses and recreational and resource values of the LMNRA, while more than doubling the treated effluent flows discharged to Lake Mead; accommodate Lake Mead's lowering water levels, which are important because the amount of mixing and dilution available in the inner Las Vegas Bay are also decreasing as the Lake level decreases; and reduce the degradation of source-water quality at the Southern Nevada Water System intake structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in the temporary displacement of wildlife species as well as disturbance, loss, or damage to individual plants and the seed bank. The SCOP would reduce the extent of habitat available to aquatic fauna. Project activities could result in removal of eligible cultural and paleontological resource sites from the landscape, some recreation areas would be inaccessible to the public during construction, and visual aesthetics would be marred by SCOP structures. Construction workers could encounter perchlorate contaminated groundwater LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050405, 837 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Lakes KW - National Parks KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Colorado River KW - Lake Mead KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16343235?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAN+WATER+COALITION+SYSTEMS+CONVEYANCE+AND+OPERATIONS+PROGRAM%2C+LAKE+MEAD+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLEAN+WATER+COALITION+SYSTEMS+CONVEYANCE+AND+OPERATIONS+PROGRAM%2C+LAKE+MEAD+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bolder City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FORCHE BAYOU BASIN, ARKANSAS: ACQUISITION OF 1,750 ACRES OF BOTTOMLAND WITH NATURE APRECIATION FACILITIES. AN - 16342955; 11770 AB - PURPOSE: The channelization of the Forche Bayou and, more particularly, the related acquisition of 1,750 acres of bottomland hardwood forest located in the bayou basin in Pulaski County, Arkansas to provide flood control and related natural resource preservation and recreational uses are reevaluated in this draft supplement to the final EIS on the project. Fourche Bottoms is a highly productive ecosystem within the city limits of Little Rock that is threatened with degradation. Its hydrologic regime is integral to that of Fourche Creek. Within the basin's 160 square miles, the bottoms are the last remaining significant tract of natural bottomland hardwoods. This highly productive habitat type is in short supply in Arkansas and the nation. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works made a Record of Decision dated 31 May 1983, that excluded the 1,750-acre Fourche Bottoms acquisition with the nature appreciation facilities from Federal participation as these lands were not necessary for the flood damage reduction project to function properly. The flood control portion of the project was constructed. In April 2000 after requests from the city of Little Rock, the ASA(CW) stated that a limited reevaluation report (LRR) would be prepared to decide whether to budget for the unconstructed work: the 1,750-acre acquisition with nature appreciation facilities. The reevaluation found that the bottomland acquisition for environmental protection and flood reduction with nature appreciation facilities is consistent with policy. The selected bottomland acres areas are within the floodplain, connected by the creeks/flood control channel and are generally contiguous although separated by road and railroad crossings. The proposed recreation facilities would include 3 miles of trails and boardwalks, bridges, restrooms, signage, parking, and an access road. The recreation features would have a benefit to cost ratio of 1.8. The bottom land acquisition component is estimated to cost a total of $5,185,000. The 1,750-acre acquisition is estimated to cost $2.6 million, the LRR is estimated to cost $520,000, and the nature appreciation facilities are estimated to cost $2.0 million.. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to enhancing the flood control aspects of the project by removing floodplain land from potential development that would be prone to flooding, the land acquisition would also preserve and interpret the wetlands for public recreational and educational uses. An incremental analysis of the bottomland acquisition found that acquiring the entire 1,750 acres would result in the greatest increase to the wetland values and functions with an incremental cost per output of $2,337. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project-related construction activities could result in temporary and minor impacts to water quality and some loss of habitat in the immediate project area; however, none of the impacts have been determined to warrant further investigation or mitigation measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 050422, 321 pages, 2005 PY - 2005 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Arkansas KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1988, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16342955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FORCHE+BAYOU+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%3A+ACQUISITION+OF+1%2C750+ACRES+OF+BOTTOMLAND+WITH+NATURE+APRECIATION+FACILITIES.&rft.title=FORCHE+BAYOU+BASIN%2C+ARKANSAS%3A+ACQUISITION+OF+1%2C750+ACRES+OF+BOTTOMLAND+WITH+NATURE+APRECIATION+FACILITIES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Arkansas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The use of rapid bioassessment protocols for long-term monitoring on Department of Defense installations AN - 16193232; 6206782 AB - Department of Defense (DOD) installation commanders and natural resource managers are tasked with providing an unimpaired training environment for troops while maintaining environmental integrity. In order for installations to achieve this balance, DOD has adopted the ecosystem-level management approach that relies on adaptive management of installation resources. An important and necessary component of adaptive management is long-term monitoring. However, identifying the appropriate metrics for longterm monitoring is a challenge. Streams are good candidates because they integrate impacts to the biotic, chemical, and physical components of a watershed and thus represent watershed integrity. One method for assessing stream quality is rapid bioassessment protocols (RBPs). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advocates use of RBPs for several applications including long-term monitoring. Most states and several tribes have adopted biomonitoring as part of their water quality programs. Examples of RBP programs in four southeastern states are discussed here. Because RBPs are utilized at the state and federal levels, they are appropriate candidates for DOD installations. In conclusion, RBPs are promising tools for long-term monitoring programs that are associated with adaptive management of DOD installations. JF - Federal Facilities Environmental Journal AU - Lee, Amy A AU - Kelley, Randall AU - Kress, MRose AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 109 EP - 120 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030 USA, [mailto:custserv@wiley.com], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/] VL - 16 IS - 1 SN - 1048-4078, 1048-4078 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Bioindicators KW - Environmental monitoring KW - Water quality measurements KW - Watersheds KW - Streams KW - EPA KW - USA KW - Monitoring methods KW - Natural resources KW - Military KW - Environment management KW - Government agencies KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16193232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Federal+Facilities+Environmental+Journal&rft.atitle=The+use+of+rapid+bioassessment+protocols+for+long-term+monitoring+on+Department+of+Defense+installations&rft.au=Lee%2C+Amy+A%3BKelley%2C+Randall%3BKress%2C+MRose&rft.aulast=Lee&rft.aufirst=Amy&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=109&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Federal+Facilities+Environmental+Journal&rft.issn=10484078&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fffej.20045 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Environmental monitoring; Bioindicators; EPA; Monitoring methods; Natural resources; Water quality measurements; Military; Watersheds; Environment management; Streams; Government agencies; USA DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ffej.20045 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Range assessment lessons learned AN - 16192132; 6399222 AB - Over the past several years, a number of Army ranges have been studied for environmental impacts. Military training activities at these ranges have included the use of artillery, mortars, grenades, ground-to-ground and airtoground rockets, small arms, and pyrotechnics. Studies have focused on the buildup of energetic residues at the firing positions and impact range areas, as well as at explosive, ordnance, and demolition (EOD) and open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) sites. A comprehensive review of these studies suggests several key issues must be addressed for successful characterization of military ranges, such as development of a site conceptual model, understanding of the fate and transport of energetics, attention to soil and groundwater sampling methodologies, and modification of analytical methods. JF - Federal Facilities Environmental Journal AU - Clausen, Jay L AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 49 EP - 62 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030 USA, [mailto:custserv@wiley.com], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/] VL - 16 IS - 2 SN - 1048-4078, 1048-4078 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Land pollution KW - Weapons KW - Residues KW - Training KW - Reviews KW - Environmental impact KW - Explosives KW - Military KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16192132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Federal+Facilities+Environmental+Journal&rft.atitle=Range+assessment+lessons+learned&rft.au=Clausen%2C+Jay+L&rft.aulast=Clausen&rft.aufirst=Jay&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=49&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Federal+Facilities+Environmental+Journal&rft.issn=10484078&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fffej.20053 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Weapons; Land pollution; Residues; Training; Reviews; Environmental impact; Explosives; Military DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ffej.20053 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Triad case study: Former small arms training range AN - 16191001; 6399229 AB - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) used the Triad approach to expedite site characterization of contaminated soil at the Former Small Arms Evergreen Infiltration Training Range in Fort Lewis, Washington. The characterization was designed to determine if surface soils contain significant concentrations of metals, with the focus on collecting sufficient data for determining appropriate future actions (i.e. risk analysis or soil remediation). A dynamic sampling and analytical strategy based on rapid field-based analytical methods was created in order to streamline site activities and save resources while increasing confidence in remediation decisions. Concurrent analysis of soil samples during the demonstration of method applicability (DMA) used both field portable X-ray fluorescence (FPXRF) and laboratory methodologies to establish a correlation between FPXRF and laboratory data. Immediately following the DMA, contaminated soil from the impact berm was delineated by collecting both FPXRF data and fixed laboratory confirmation samples. The combined data set provided analytical results that allowed for revisions to the conceptual site model for the range and directed additional sample collection activities to more clearly determine the extent and distribution of soil contamination. JF - Federal Facilities Environmental Journal AU - Puckett, Gwyn AU - Shaw, Travis C AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District's Environmental Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 121 EP - 130 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030 USA, [mailto:custserv@wiley.com], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/] VL - 16 IS - 2 SN - 1048-4078, 1048-4078 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Soil remediation KW - Metals KW - USA, Washington, Fort Lewis KW - Weapons KW - Fluorescence KW - Training KW - Remediation KW - Soil contamination KW - Military KW - Land reclamation KW - Sampling methods KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16191001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Federal+Facilities+Environmental+Journal&rft.atitle=Triad+case+study%3A+Former+small+arms+training+range&rft.au=Puckett%2C+Gwyn%3BShaw%2C+Travis+C&rft.aulast=Puckett&rft.aufirst=Gwyn&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=121&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Federal+Facilities+Environmental+Journal&rft.issn=10484078&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fffej.20056 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil remediation; Metals; Weapons; Fluorescence; Training; Remediation; Soil contamination; Military; Land reclamation; Sampling methods; USA, Washington, Fort Lewis DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ffej.20056 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Improving UXO discrimination using magnetic quadrupole moments AN - 1416687993; 2013-057844 AB - Currently there are no UXO discrimination techniques based on total-field magnetic sensor data that rely on multi-pole expansion parameters of higher order than the dipole. In some cases, however, it can be advantages to describe a UXO target with both dipole and quadrupole parameters. In this paper, we examine the properties of the quadrupole moment and illustrate them using a synthetic example with an arbitrary shape. We then define a set of diagnostic parameters of the quadrupole moment for practical interpretation of an observed UXO target. Application to a field data set shows the potential of using the quadrupole moment diagnostics as discrimination criteria. JF - SEG Annual Meeting Expanded Technical Program Abstracts with Biographies AU - Sinex, David AU - Li, Yaoguo AU - Yule, Don AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 680 EP - 683 PB - Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK VL - 24 SN - 1052-3812, 1052-3812 KW - orientation KW - explosions KW - total-field methods KW - geophysical methods KW - magnetic methods KW - magnetic anomalies KW - unexploded ordnance KW - properties KW - measurement KW - visualization KW - military geology KW - mathematical methods KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1416687993?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=SEG+Annual+Meeting+Expanded+Technical+Program+Abstracts+with+Biographies&rft.atitle=Improving+UXO+discrimination+using+magnetic+quadrupole+moments&rft.au=Sinex%2C+David%3BLi%2C+Yaoguo%3BYule%2C+Don%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Sinex&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=&rft.spage=680&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=SEG+Annual+Meeting+Expanded+Technical+Program+Abstracts+with+Biographies&rft.issn=10523812&rft_id=info:doi/10.1190%2F1.2144415 L2 - http://www.seg.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Society of Exploration Geophysicists, seventy-fifth annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 3 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2013-08-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - explosions; geophysical methods; magnetic anomalies; magnetic methods; mathematical methods; measurement; military geology; orientation; properties; total-field methods; unexploded ordnance; visualization DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2144415 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Time-lapse seismic study of levees in southern Texas AN - 1416686274; 2013-057956 AB - The primary objective of this work was to measure changes in compressional- (Vp) and shear-wave (Vs) velocities in an earthen levee during a ponding experiment designed to simulate flood conditions on the Rio Grande in south Texas. Preliminary testing at five levee sites, all within a 10 km radius and each with unique physical, EM, and core characteristics, was completed and a single low-conductivity, highly fractured site was selected for investigation. Several different types of seismic data were recorded. Seismic data analysis techniques appraised included P- and S-wave refraction tomography and Rayleigh surface-wave analysis using multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW). P-wave methods provided reasonable results, but no change was observed in velocity even after full pool had been maintained against the levee side for two days. The S-wave velocity change was rapid and isolated to one area within the confines of the pool. The reason for the latter effect cannot be uniquely determined; however, it may possibly be the result of an isolated variable expansion of the clay core, a likely explanation considering the preceding years of drought. Alternatively, these changes could be related to mechanical compaction variability and variable material distribution within the levees. JF - SEG Annual Meeting Expanded Technical Program Abstracts with Biographies AU - Ivanov, Julian AU - Miller, Richard D AU - Ballard, Robert F, Jr AU - Dunbar, Joseph B AU - Smullen, Steve AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2005 PY - 2005 DA - 2005 SP - 1121 EP - 1124 PB - Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK VL - 24 SN - 1052-3812, 1052-3812 KW - United States KW - tomography KW - P-waves KW - geophysical surveys KW - geologic hazards KW - data acquisition KW - data processing KW - elastic waves KW - refraction methods KW - surface waves KW - Love waves KW - time-lapse methods KW - floods KW - electromagnetic methods KW - velocity KW - Rio Grande KW - Hidalgo County Texas KW - body waves KW - monitoring KW - guided waves KW - geophysical methods KW - Texas KW - inverse problem KW - Rayleigh waves KW - seismic methods KW - MASW KW - levees KW - compaction KW - multichannel analysis of surface waves KW - natural hazards KW - surveys KW - seismic waves KW - S-waves KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1416686274?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=SEG+Annual+Meeting+Expanded+Technical+Program+Abstracts+with+Biographies&rft.atitle=Time-lapse+seismic+study+of+levees+in+southern+Texas&rft.au=Ivanov%2C+Julian%3BMiller%2C+Richard+D%3BBallard%2C+Robert+F%2C+Jr%3BDunbar%2C+Joseph+B%3BSmullen%2C+Steve%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Ivanov&rft.aufirst=Julian&rft.date=2005-01-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1121&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=SEG+Annual+Meeting+Expanded+Technical+Program+Abstracts+with+Biographies&rft.issn=10523812&rft_id=info:doi/10.1190%2F1.2147878 L2 - http://www.seg.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Society of Exploration Geophysicists, seventy-fifth annual meeting N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, OK, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2013-08-02 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - body waves; compaction; data acquisition; data processing; elastic waves; electromagnetic methods; floods; geologic hazards; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; guided waves; Hidalgo County Texas; inverse problem; levees; Love waves; MASW; monitoring; multichannel analysis of surface waves; natural hazards; P-waves; Rayleigh waves; refraction methods; Rio Grande; S-waves; seismic methods; seismic waves; surface waves; surveys; Texas; time-lapse methods; tomography; United States; velocity DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.2147878 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S ROUTE 22 TO INTERSTATE 79, ALLEGHENY AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36435319; 11334 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southern Beltway Transportation Project, extending from US 22 to Interstate 79 (I-79), in Allegheny and Washington counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. The overall program of improvements has been designated as three separate projects for independent development and environmental review, based on logical project termini, differing project needs, and differing scheduling and funding opportunities. Each of the three projects is self-standing; that is, each project has independent utility that would not curtail or obligate improvements in the other project areas along the corridor. Nonetheless, these projects are being planned so they can work together as a cohesive system for regional benefit. This EIS addresses the Southern Beltway program, incorporating all three individual transportation projects. In addition to the first proposal, this EIS considers a four-lane, limited access highway from Pennsylvania Route 60 to US 22 and a similar facility from Interstate 79 to Mon/Fayette Expressway. The focus of the EIS is, however, on the project extending from US 22 to I-79; it is the impacts of this component of the system that are covered in the EIS process. Three new toll road alternatives and a No-Build alternative are considered in this draft EIS. All of the toll road alternatives would provide four-lane, limited-access toll highways extending approximately 13 miles from US 22 in the Robinson Township of Washington Count to I-79 in the Southern Fayette Township of Allegheny Count and the Cecil Township of Washington County. The preferred alternative (Alternative B2) would provide for 12.88 miles of four-lane toolway. Construction cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at 400 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The three projects would provide a 30-mile network of transportation improvements in the area to support economic development in southwestern Pennsylvania and improve east-west mobility in the circumferential corridor south and west of the cit of Pittsburg. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement 76 residences, eight businesses, and one community facility, as well as 99 acres of productive agricultural land, 21 acres of agricultural security area, 6.64 acres of wetlands across 66 wetland sites, seven acres of floodplain, 739 acres of forest, 232 acres of rangeland, and 36 acres of grassland. Approximately 5,78 feet of perennial stream would be lost of covered with culvert structures. The habitat of one federally listed species, the short-eared owl, would be affected. Potential for reduction of access to coalmines would be low. One railroad crossing would be necessary, but it would not be an at-grade crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040600, 551 pages and maps, December 22, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-04-02-D KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Mineral Resources KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania 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/36435319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+BELTWAY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S+ROUTE+22+TO+INTERSTATE+79%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+BELTWAY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S+ROUTE+22+TO+INTERSTATE+79%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 22, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S ROUTE 22 TO INTERSTATE 79, ALLEGHENY AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTHERN BELTWAY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S ROUTE 22 TO INTERSTATE 79, ALLEGHENY AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36367577; 11334-040600_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Southern Beltway Transportation Project, extending from US 22 to Interstate 79 (I-79), in Allegheny and Washington counties, Pennsylvania is proposed. The overall program of improvements has been designated as three separate projects for independent development and environmental review, based on logical project termini, differing project needs, and differing scheduling and funding opportunities. Each of the three projects is self-standing; that is, each project has independent utility that would not curtail or obligate improvements in the other project areas along the corridor. Nonetheless, these projects are being planned so they can work together as a cohesive system for regional benefit. This EIS addresses the Southern Beltway program, incorporating all three individual transportation projects. In addition to the first proposal, this EIS considers a four-lane, limited access highway from Pennsylvania Route 60 to US 22 and a similar facility from Interstate 79 to Mon/Fayette Expressway. The focus of the EIS is, however, on the project extending from US 22 to I-79; it is the impacts of this component of the system that are covered in the EIS process. Three new toll road alternatives and a No-Build alternative are considered in this draft EIS. All of the toll road alternatives would provide four-lane, limited-access toll highways extending approximately 13 miles from US 22 in the Robinson Township of Washington Count to I-79 in the Southern Fayette Township of Allegheny Count and the Cecil Township of Washington County. The preferred alternative (Alternative B2) would provide for 12.88 miles of four-lane toolway. Construction cost for the preferred alternative is estimated at 400 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The three projects would provide a 30-mile network of transportation improvements in the area to support economic development in southwestern Pennsylvania and improve east-west mobility in the circumferential corridor south and west of the cit of Pittsburg. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement 76 residences, eight businesses, and one community facility, as well as 99 acres of productive agricultural land, 21 acres of agricultural security area, 6.64 acres of wetlands across 66 wetland sites, seven acres of floodplain, 739 acres of forest, 232 acres of rangeland, and 36 acres of grassland. Approximately 5,78 feet of perennial stream would be lost of covered with culvert structures. The habitat of one federally listed species, the short-eared owl, would be affected. Potential for reduction of access to coalmines would be low. One railroad crossing would be necessary, but it would not be an at-grade crossing. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040600, 551 pages and maps, December 22, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-04-02-D KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Mineral Resources KW - Railroads KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Pennsylvania 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/36367577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+BELTWAY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S+ROUTE+22+TO+INTERSTATE+79%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+BELTWAY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S+ROUTE+22+TO+INTERSTATE+79%2C+ALLEGHENY+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 22, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Quantum dot-antibody and aptamer conjugates shift fluorescence upon binding bacteria AN - 20156492; 6158426 AB - CdSe/ZnS quantum dots (QDs) exhibited fluorescence emission blue shifts when conjugated to antibodies or DNA aptamers that are bound to bacteria. The intensity of the shifted emission peak increased with the number of bound bacteria. Curiously, the emission was consistently shifted to approximately 440-460 nm, which is distinctly different from the major component of the natural fluorescence spectrum of these QDs. This minor emission peak can grow upon conjugation to antibodies or aptamers and subsequent binding to bacterial cell surfaces. We hypothesize that the wavelength shift is due to changes in the chemical environment of the QD conjugates when they encounter the bacterial surface and may be due to physical deformation of the QD that changes the quantum confinement state. Regardless of the mechanism, these remarkable emission wavelength shifts of greater than 140nm in some cases strongly suggest new applications for QD-receptor conjugates. JF - Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications AU - Dwarakanath, S AU - Bruno, J G AU - Shastry, A AU - Phillips, T AU - John, A AU - Kumar, A AU - Stephenson, L D AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL 61826, USA, su@nanosciencediagnostics.com Y1 - 2004/12/17/ PY - 2004 DA - 2004 Dec 17 SP - 739 EP - 743 VL - 325 IS - 3 SN - 0006-291X, 0006-291X KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology KW - Aptamers KW - Cell surface KW - Antibodies KW - Conjugation KW - Fluorescence KW - Quantum dots KW - Wavelength KW - J 02310:Genetics & Taxonomy KW - A 01450:Environmental Pollution & Waste Treatment UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20156492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Amicrobiologyb&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Biochemical+and+Biophysical+Research+Communications&rft.atitle=Quantum+dot-antibody+and+aptamer+conjugates+shift+fluorescence+upon+binding+bacteria&rft.au=Dwarakanath%2C+S%3BBruno%2C+J+G%3BShastry%2C+A%3BPhillips%2C+T%3BJohn%2C+A%3BKumar%2C+A%3BStephenson%2C+L+D&rft.aulast=Dwarakanath&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2004-12-17&rft.volume=325&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=739&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Biochemical+and+Biophysical+Research+Communications&rft.issn=0006291X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.bbrc.2004.10.099 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2009-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Aptamers; Cell surface; Conjugation; Antibodies; Fluorescence; Quantum dots; Wavelength DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.10.099 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36436496; 11298 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 8 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36370758; 11298-040559_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 4 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36370718; 11298-040559_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 11 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36370378; 11298-040559_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370378?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-02-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=109&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Clinical+Psychology%3A+Science+and+Practice&rft.issn=09695893&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 9 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36370330; 11298-040559_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370330?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%3Ahealthcompleteshell&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Clinical+Psychology%3A+Science+and+Practice&rft.atitle=Meeting+the+Mental+Health+Needs+of+Older+Adults+in+Primary+Care%3A+How+Do+We+Get+the+Job+Done%3F&rft.au=Reynolds%2C+Charles+F%2C+III&rft.aulast=Reynolds&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2003-02-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=109&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Clinical+Psychology%3A+Science+and+Practice&rft.issn=09695893&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 13 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36370200; 11298-040559_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370200?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 16 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36369969; 11298-040559_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369969?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 5 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36369239; 11298-040559_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 12 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36369201; 11298-040559_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 14 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36369126; 11298-040559_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369126?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 7 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36369070; 11298-040559_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 18 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36368166; 11298-040559_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 6 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36367863; 11298-040559_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 10 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36367655; 11298-040559_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 17 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36367192; 11298-040559_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367192?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 3 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36366139; 11298-040559_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366139?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36366077; 11298-040559_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 15 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36365330; 11298-040559_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 18] T2 - STATE HIGHWAY 397 (MACK HATCHER PARKWAY EXTENSION), FROM US 31 (STATE ROUTE 6, COLUMBIA AVENUE), SOUTH OF FRANKLIN TO US 431 (STATE ROUTE 106, HILLSBORO ROAD), NORTH OF FRANKLIN, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36363870; 11298-040559_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The completion of State Route (SR) 397 (Mack Hatcher Parkway) around the city of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee is proposed. The eight to ten-mile project would extend from US 31 (State Route 6, Columbia Avenue) south of Franklin to US 431 (State Route 106, Hillsboro Road) north of Franklin in Williamson County, Tennessee. Facility would be a four-lane, divided, limited-access facility within rights-of-way 250 feet in width, with narrowing to 104 feet in selected locations, on a new alignment. The typical cross-section would be developed to accommodate six lanes in the future. The first build section would lie within the restricted 104-foot rights-of-way, providing five lanes, with a 12-foot center turn lane, and an urban section with shoulders and standard 2.5-foot curb-and-gutter sections. Combined with the existing parkway, this extension would create a complete loop around the city of Franklin and provide needed connectivity throughout the region. The design speed would be 60 miles per hour. The existing Mack Hatcher is currently classified as an urban principle arterial. Six build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: regardless of the build alternative selected, the project would improve local circulation, reduce traffic congestion in downtown Franklin, improve access to Interstate 65 and other regional destinations, reduce travel times, lower vehicular operating costs, and improve air quality. The Tennessee Valley Authority wishes to locate a new powerline and substation within the study area and hopes to locate the line adjacent to the transportation corridor in an effort to reduce environmental impacts in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, the new facility would require relocation of a limited number of residential and commercial properties and conversion of open, rural land to public use. More specifically, the project would displace one or two businesses and up to 19 residential properties {4-14} and 210 to 280 acres of farmland. {4-2} the highway would affect the Harpeth River Historic District. Sensitive receptor sites would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards in some areas along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040559, 227 pages and maps, December 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Air Quality KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-12-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=STATE+HIGHWAY+397+%28MACK+HATCHER+PARKWAY+EXTENSION%29%2C+FROM+US+31+%28STATE+ROUTE+6%2C+COLUMBIA+AVENUE%29%2C+SOUTH+OF+FRANKLIN+TO+US+431+%28STATE+ROUTE+106%2C+HILLSBORO+ROAD%29%2C+NORTH+OF+FRANKLIN%2C+WILLIAMSON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Nashville, Tennessee; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CORRIDOR, I-205/PORTLAND MALL LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTH CORRIDOR, I-205/PORTLAND MALL LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 36369464; 11316-040578_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transit improvements in the north-south corridor of the metropolitan area of Portland, Oregon is proposed. An October 2003 final supplement to the final EIS of 1998 to the February 1998 final EIS addressed on the proposed improvements in the north/south transportation corridor of Clackmas and Multnomah counties, Oregon and Clark County which includes the cities of Oregon City, Gladstone, and Milwaukee; the Clackamas Regional Center (CRC) area of unincorporated Clackamas County; a section of southeast Portland; Portland's central city; a section north/northeast of Portland; the city of Vancouver; and other parts of Clark County, Washington. Since 1980, the number of jobs and households along the corridor has been increasing at the rate of two to three percent annually. By the year 2015, the final EIS projected that increases in travel miles will result in a 268 percent increase in the miles of congested roadways in the corridor and a 720 percent increase in the number of hours that drivers must sit in congested traffic. The final supplemental EIS addressed improvements in the portion of the north/south corridor including Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties in Oregon and Clark County in Washington. Alternatives considered in the final supplement include a No-Build Alternative and light rail alternatives within the downtown Portland segment. Action alternatives involve construction of a light rail transit line, complemented by bus-oriented capital improvements. The light rail improvements would be made in the downtown Portland and Interstate 205 (I-205) segments of the South Corridor. While the Green Line would operate through all three segments of the corridor, there would be no capital improvements to the I-84 segment, where the Green Line would use the light rail alignment and stations. In addition to the Green Line, the Yellow Line would operate on the Portland Mall alignment, instead of on the Cross Mall alignment. Within the downtown Portland segment, the Portland Mall alignment would branch off from the existing Cross Mall light rail alignment at the west end of the Steel Bridge, transitioning to a new structure that would lead to Northwest Irving Street. The alignment would return to grade at Northwest Fourth Avenue and would then turn onto Northwest Fifty and Sixth avenues. This final EIS on the Mall Light Rail Project proposes an I-205/Portland Mall Project extension of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) projects, including improvements to the existing transportation system in the Portland metropolitan area. The locally preferred strategy for the North-South Corridor Project as been amended to include a two-phase project for the South Corridor. Phase 1 would include the I-205/Portland Mall LRT Project. Phase 2 would include the Portland to Milwaukee Project; a separate final EIS will be prepared for Phase 2. The I-205/90% of the shoreface prism was reworked during the 12.4-year period whereas actual ages for erosional events indicate a potential of 2 to 4 years for complete reworking of the shoreface mass. Textural distribution indicates net long-term transport direction and loci of deposition for different sized material. The coarsest material is concentrated at landwardmost locations and well-sorted fine to very fine sand at seaward locations. Medium sand to gravel tends to remain within the trough zone, even during extreme storm events. The ULe and LLe also represent the upper and lower limits for profile closure events. A location of about 4.5 m depth at 300 to 350 m from shoreline marks the boundary between inner profile- and lower ramp-associated closure events, the boundary between trough-associated and lower ramp facies, and the lower ramp morphologic break, all of which correspond to the juncture between longshore-current- and shoaling wave-dominated zones. The lower-ramp zone of closure is a zone of seaward decreasing storm transport in which fine to very fine sand is the typical bedload material. JF - Marine Geology AU - Schwartz, Robert K AU - Birkemeier, William A Y1 - 2004/10// PY - 2004 DA - October 2004 SP - 215 EP - 255 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 211 IS - 3-4 SN - 0025-3227, 0025-3227 KW - cycles KW - longshore currents KW - beaches KW - shelf environment KW - storms KW - sedimentary structures KW - barrier islands KW - shore features KW - progradation KW - accretion KW - time series analysis KW - sediment transport KW - clastic sediments KW - textures KW - landform evolution KW - shorelines KW - water erosion KW - marine environment KW - erosion control KW - inner shelf KW - continental shelf KW - bioturbation KW - ramps KW - United States KW - erosion KW - marine geology KW - Dare County North Carolina KW - marine transport KW - cores KW - Outer Banks KW - sediments KW - Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - scour KW - currents KW - sand KW - beach nourishment KW - laminations KW - biogenic structures KW - statistical analysis KW - sedimentation KW - bars KW - Duck North Carolina KW - troughs KW - ocean currents KW - tidal inlets KW - lithofacies KW - planar bedding structures KW - North Carolina KW - geomorphology KW - coastal sedimentation KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51773125?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=Marine+Geology&rft.atitle=Sedimentology+and+morphodynamics+of+a+barrier+island+shoreface+related+to+engineering+concerns%2C+Outer+Banks%2C+NC%2C+USA&rft.au=Schwartz%2C+Robert+K%3BBirkemeier%2C+William+A&rft.aulast=Schwartz&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=211&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=215&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Marine+Geology&rft.issn=00253227&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.margeo.2004.05.020 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00253227 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 65 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - MAGEA6 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accretion; Atlantic Coastal Plain; barrier islands; bars; beach nourishment; beaches; biogenic structures; bioturbation; clastic sediments; coastal sedimentation; continental shelf; cores; currents; cycles; Dare County North Carolina; Duck North Carolina; erosion; erosion control; geomorphology; inner shelf; laminations; landform evolution; lithofacies; longshore currents; marine environment; marine geology; marine transport; North Carolina; ocean currents; Outer Banks; planar bedding structures; progradation; ramps; sand; scour; sediment transport; sedimentary structures; sedimentation; sediments; shelf environment; shore features; shorelines; statistical analysis; storms; textures; tidal inlets; time series analysis; troughs; United States; water erosion DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2004.05.020 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Addition of carbon sorbents to reduce PCB and PAH bioavailability in marine sediments; physicochemical tests AN - 51734407; 2005-028501 JF - Environmental Science & Technology, ES & T AU - Zimmerman, John R AU - Ghosh, Upal AU - Millward, Rod N AU - Bridges, Todd S AU - Luthy, Richard G Y1 - 2004/10// PY - 2004 DA - October 2004 SP - 5458 EP - 5464 PB - American Chemical Society, Washington, DC VL - 38 IS - 20 SN - 0013-936X, 0013-936X KW - United States KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - sorption KW - desorption KW - X-ray diffraction data KW - PCBs KW - Hunters Point California KW - aqueous solutions KW - remediation KW - California KW - marine sediments KW - San Francisco Bay KW - phase equilibria KW - carbon KW - sediments KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - chemical composition KW - geochemistry KW - hydrophobic materials KW - experimental studies KW - pollutants KW - biochemistry KW - physicochemical properties KW - statistical analysis KW - pollution KW - properties KW - bioremediation KW - measurement KW - organic compounds KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - testing KW - aromatic hydrocarbons 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/51734407?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+Science+%26+Technology%2C+ES+%26+T&rft.atitle=Addition+of+carbon+sorbents+to+reduce+PCB+and+PAH+bioavailability+in+marine+sediments%3B+physicochemical+tests&rft.au=Zimmerman%2C+John+R%3BGhosh%2C+Upal%3BMillward%2C+Rod+N%3BBridges%2C+Todd+S%3BLuthy%2C+Richard+G&rft.aulast=Zimmerman&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=20&rft.spage=5458&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology%2C+ES+%26+T&rft.issn=0013936X&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pubs.acs.org/journals/esthag/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 30 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ESTHAG N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aqueous solutions; aromatic hydrocarbons; biochemistry; bioremediation; California; carbon; chemical composition; chlorinated hydrocarbons; desorption; experimental studies; geochemistry; halogenated hydrocarbons; Hunters Point California; hydrophobic materials; marine sediments; measurement; organic compounds; PCBs; phase equilibria; physicochemical properties; pollutants; pollution; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; properties; remediation; San Francisco Bay; sediments; sorption; statistical analysis; testing; United States; X-ray diffraction data ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A method for evaluating horizontal well pumping tests AN - 51679038; 2005-066063 AB - Predicting the future performance of horizontal wells under varying pumping conditions requires estimates of basic aquifer parameters, notably transmissivity and storativity. For vertical wells, there are well-established methods for estimating these parameters, typically based on either the recovery from induced head changes in a well or from the head response in observation wells to pumping in a test well. Comparable aquifer parameter estimation methods for horizontal wells have not been presented in the ground water literature. Formation parameter estimation methods based on measurements of pressure in horizontal wells have been presented in the petroleum industry literature, but these methods have limited applicability for ground water evaluation and are based on pressure measurements in only the horizontal well borehole, rather than in observation wells. This paper presents a simple and versatile method by which pumping test procedures developed for vertical wells can be applied to horizontal well pumping tests. The method presented here uses the principle of superposition to represent the horizontal well as a series of partially penetrating vertical wells. This concept is used to estimate a distance from an observation well at which a vertical well that has the same total pumping rate as the horizontal well will produce the same drawdown as the horizontal well. This equivalent distance may then be associated with an observation well for use in pumping test algorithms and type curves developed for vertical wells. The method is shown to produce good results for confined aquifers and unconfined aquifers in the absence of delayed yield response. For unconfined aquifers, the presence of delayed yield response increases the method error. JF - Ground Water AU - Langseth, David E AU - Smyth, Andrew H AU - May, James Y1 - 2004/10// PY - 2004 DA - October 2004 SP - 689 EP - 699 PB - National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0017-467X, 0017-467X KW - water storage KW - horizontal drilling KW - pressure KW - confined aquifers KW - observation wells KW - measurement KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - models KW - pump tests KW - drawdown KW - transmissivity KW - mathematical methods KW - directional drilling KW - drilling KW - water wells KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51679038?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=Ground+Water&rft.atitle=A+method+for+evaluating+horizontal+well+pumping+tests&rft.au=Langseth%2C+David+E%3BSmyth%2C+Andrew+H%3BMay%2C+James&rft.aulast=Langseth&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=689&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ground+Water&rft.issn=0017467X&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1745-6584 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 42 N1 - PubXState - OH N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - CODEN - GRWAAP N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; confined aquifers; directional drilling; drawdown; drilling; ground water; horizontal drilling; mathematical methods; measurement; models; observation wells; pressure; pump tests; transmissivity; water storage; water wells ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36365025; 11271-040476_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 44.9-mile segment of US 2 from the end of the curb-and-gutter section east of Havre in Hill County to its junction with Montana Highway 66 (MT 66) at the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Blaine County, Montana is proposed. The corridor is located in the Milk River valley in north-central Montana. The existing facility suffers from narrow shoulders, deficiencies in the clear zone and horizontal and vertical alignment, an inadequate offset with respect to the adjacent railway line, and a poor safety performance. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in this final EIS. This attachment to the final EIS provides the record of decision with respect to the preferred alternative as well as an appendix containing belated comments. The alternative preferred by the Montana DeparTment of Transportation would provide a four-lane highway. In rural areas, the Federal Highway Administration prefers an alternative that would provide an improved two-lane facility, complemented by passing lanes as appropriate. There is reasonable certainty that funding for the two-lane would be available for the two-lane facility, while funding is less likely for the four-lane alternative. The project would include up to 30 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the improved two-lane facility, two-lane facility with passing lanes, four-lane undivided facility, and four-lane divided alternative are $69.7 million, $73.4 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of 1.9 for a two-lane facility, 2.0 for a two-lane facility with passing lanes, 2.9 for a four-lane undivided facility, and by a ratio of 3.1 to one for a four-lane divided facility. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway segment would provide an efficient, safe highway that would meet the needs of local communities, agricultural operators, industry, commerce, and tourism. By meeting current design standards, the facility would reduce roadway deficiencies, increase safety, and improve traffic operations within the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would traverse a corridor containing 16 sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and one historic site not formally evaluated but covered under a programmatic agreement; three to six of the sites would be affected by the project. Build alternatives would impact 5.9 to 9.7 acres of jurisdictional wetlands the project would also encroach on The Milk River floodplain. Rights-of-way requirements totaling 257.6 to 443.1 acres would result in the displacement of 85.8 to 128.1 acres of farmland, six to eight residences, and three to 14 businesses in and/or near Chinook and could result in the displacement of one business east of Harve. The four-lane alternatives would displace auto sales, repair, and fuel services that are of importance to the local Native American population. The project would have lateral and longitudinal impacts on irrigation ditches located in three irrigation districts. Construction workers could encounter as many as 17 hazardous materials sites within the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 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: 040476, Record of Decision--13 pages, October 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Montana 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/36365025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+2%2C+HAVRE+TO+FORT+BELKNAP%2C+HILL+AND+BLAINE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - The influence of residential water conservation programs: Applications for Virginia AN - 20724428; 7651439 AB - Recent droughts and the ensuing strains on water supply sources have highlighted the interest in water conservation policies in Virginia. The lack of technical information regarding the influence of water conservation programs on residential water demand is a continuing challenge for water planners. This presentation reviews the current state of the knowledge about the effectiveness of various water conservation policies in the mid-Atlantic region. The presentation also highlights the results of a study on the influence of imposition of conservation programs on residential water customers in Stafford County, Virginia based on a decade of historical data. JF - Water Resource Management for the Commonwealth AU - Stephenson, K AU - Cartwright, L A2 - Walker, J A2 - Poff, J (eds) Y1 - 2004/10// PY - 2004 DA - October 2004 SP - 1 EP - 161 PB - Virginia Water Resources Research Center, 23 Agnew Hall Virginia Tech Blacksburg VA 24061 USA KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Historical account KW - Water conservation KW - Water Supply KW - Water resources KW - Drought KW - Water Resources Management KW - Strain KW - Water supplies KW - Water Policy KW - water demand KW - Droughts KW - Water resources management KW - Water Demand KW - USA, Mid-Atlantic Region KW - USA, Virginia KW - Water Conservation KW - Strains KW - Water supply KW - Water management KW - Reviews KW - British Isles, England, Stafford KW - Conservation KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - SW 0810:General KW - Q2 09161:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20724428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Stephenson%2C+K%3BCartwright%2C+L&rft.aulast=Stephenson&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=161&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=The+influence+of+residential+water+conservation+programs%3A+Applications+for+Virginia&rft.title=The+influence+of+residential+water+conservation+programs%3A+Applications+for+Virginia&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Spectrofluorometric filter chamber assay to identify and quantify E. coli AN - 20615534; 7651427 AB - The goal of this project was to develop a rapid assay for the detection and quantification of E. coli that was specific, sensitive, and comparable to standard methods. This project utilized the defined substrate 4-methylumbelliferyl- beta -D-glucuronide (MUG), the selective EC medium, and spectrofluorometry. This new procedure generated same day results for detecting and quantifying E. coli in surface water. Fluorescence intensity was proportional to both incubation times and E. coli numbers, with ranges of 30 minutes to 11 hours and 10 super(8) cells to 1 cell (r super(2) = 0.988). JF - Water Resource Management for the Commonwealth AU - Nelson, J AU - Webb, S AU - Anderson, J A2 - Walker, J A2 - Poff, J (eds) Y1 - 2004/10// PY - 2004 DA - October 2004 SP - 1 EP - 118 PB - Virginia Water Resources Research Center, 23 Agnew Hall Virginia Tech Blacksburg VA 24061 USA KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Bacteria (Enterobacteriaceae) (Escherichia) KW - Fluorescence KW - USA, Virginia KW - Surface Water KW - Water Resources Management KW - Filters KW - Escherichia coli KW - Assay KW - Substrates KW - Standards KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 2010:Control of water on the surface UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20615534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Nelson%2C+J%3BWebb%2C+S%3BAnderson%2C+J&rft.aulast=Nelson&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=118&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Spectrofluorometric+filter+chamber+assay+to+identify+and+quantify+E.+coli&rft.title=Spectrofluorometric+filter+chamber+assay+to+identify+and+quantify+E.+coli&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Toxicity and Metabolites of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT) in Plants and Worms from Exposure to Aged Soil AN - 19441230; 7173677 AB - The objectives of this study were to provide data that can be used to predict exposure-based effects of TNT in aged soil on four endpoint organisms representing two trophic levels. These data can be used for defining criteria or reference values for environmental management and for conducting specific risk assessment. Dose-response experiments formed the basis for evaluating the toxic effects and transfer of contaminants from soil into two trophic levels, taking bioavailability-modifying soil characteristics into account. Short-term exposure tests were conducted to explore the acute toxicity for the test organisms of TNT-spiked artificial soils and of the aged TNT-contarninated soil to be included in the subsequent long-term exposure tests. In these tests, plants were exposed for 10 days, and seed germination was determined. Worms were exposed for 14 days, and survival was recorded. Long-term exposure tests were conducted to evaluate chronic, sublethal toxicity and transfer of aged soil-based explosives, with TNT as the main contaminant. In these tests, plants were exposed for 55 days in the greenhouse, biomass was determined, and residues of explosives parent compounds and TNT metabolites were analyzed using HPLC techniques. Worms were exposed for 28 days (Eiseniafetida) and 42 days (Enchytraeus crypticus) in the laboratory, biomass and number were determined, and tissues were analyzed for explosives compounds. Both plant test species, Loliwn perenne and Medicago sativa, tolerated TNT concentrations up to 171 mg kg super(-1) dry weight (DW) during short-term exposure. In the longer term the plants were less tolerant of TNT, but L. perenne was more tolerant than M. sativa. An effective concentration causing a 20 percent decrease in plant biomass (EC20) of 2.4 and EC50 of 7.2 mg TNT kg super(-1) soil DW was derived for L. perenne from linear regression. An EC50 of less than or equal to 2.7 mg TNT kg super(-1) was found for M. sativa, based on the observation that these plants died at TNT concentrations >5.4 mg kg super(-1). TNT metabolites (2ADNT, 4ADNT), RDX, and HMX were recovered in L. perenne shoots and roots. Only the TNT metabolite concentrations in shoots increased significantly with soil TNT concentration. Among the worm test species, E. fetida tolerated TNT concentrations up to 100 mg kg super(-1) during short-term exposure. Fifty percent of these E. crypticus individuals died at a TNT concentration as low as 10 mg TNT kg super(-1), and all died at higher concentrations. In the longer term the worms were less tolerant of TNT, but E. fetida was more tolerant than E. crypticus. An EC20 of 1.2 and EC50 of 3.6 mg TNT kg super(-1) soil DW was derived for E. fetida from linear regression. An EC50 of less than or equal to 2.15 mg TNT kg super(-1) was found for E. crypticus, based on the observation that these worms died at a TNT concentration of 4.3 mg kg super(-1). No explosives parent compounds or metabolites were recovered in the worms. Because only the effects of soil-TNT concentration on the biomass of L. perenne and E. fetida were significant, the toxicity of the soil was attributed mainly to the contamination by TNT. However, the other explosives identified in the soil mixtures prior to the tests may have contributed also. Clay amendment did not significantly affect the plant and worm responses. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Best, EPH AU - Tatem, HE AU - Wells, M L AU - Geter, K N AU - Lane, B K Y1 - 2004/10// PY - 2004 DA - Oct 2004 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Risk assessment KW - High-performance liquid chromatography KW - Contamination KW - Enchytraeus crypticus KW - Toluene KW - Soil characteristics KW - Roots KW - Survival KW - Metabolites KW - Acute toxicity KW - Clays KW - Soil KW - 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene KW - Seed germination KW - greenhouses KW - shoots KW - plant biomass KW - Clay KW - Data processing KW - seed germination KW - Toxicity KW - Biomass KW - Trophic levels KW - Greenhouses KW - Soil pollution KW - Shoots KW - Explosives KW - Contaminants KW - Environment management KW - Medicago sativa KW - X 24350:Industrial Chemicals KW - P 6000:TOXICOLOGY AND HEALTH UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19441230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Toxicology+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Best%2C+EPH%3BTatem%2C+HE%3BWells%2C+M+L%3BGeter%2C+K+N%3BLane%2C+B+K&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=EPH&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Toxicity+and+Metabolites+of+2%2C4%2C6-Trinitrotoluene+%28TNT%29+in+Plants+and+Worms+from+Exposure+to+Aged+Soil&rft.title=Toxicity+and+Metabolites+of+2%2C4%2C6-Trinitrotoluene+%28TNT%29+in+Plants+and+Worms+from+Exposure+to+Aged+Soil&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-01 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Chlorinated Solvent DNAPL Extent Characterization at the East Gate Disposal Yard (Egdy), Fort Lewis, Washington AN - 17294127; 5895741 AB - The EGDY contains mixed solvent and petroleum hydrocarbon dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) disposed in trenches as drummed waste or directly as liquid waste. The DNAPLs are the source of a 13,000 feet long TCE plume that contaminates an upper, unconfined aquifer and a lower, confined aquifer to depths of 220 feet below ground surface (bgs). During the EGDY characterization, samples were analyzed in field laboratories or fixed labs with rapid turnaround times to expedite the on site decision making process. The data collection tools used and the number and location of data collection points for each tool were decided by a team of scientists and engineers as the Approximately 100,000 yd super(3) of NAPL contaminated soils will be thermally remediated by soil heating beginning in 2003. This presentation will describe how the Triad approach was used to develop a conceptual site model for this DNAPL site, and reduce overall uncertainty in the characterization. JF - SOILS, SEDIMENTS, AND WATER. AU - Lynch, K P Y1 - 2004/10// PY - 2004 DA - Oct 2004 PB - UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Aquifers KW - USA, Washington, Fort Lewis KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Laboratories KW - Solvents KW - Groundwater Pollution KW - Soil contamination KW - Unconfined Aquifers KW - Liquid wastes KW - Sediments KW - nonaqueous phase liquids KW - USA, Washington KW - Liquid Wastes KW - Nonaqueous Phase Liquids KW - Petroleum KW - Waste disposal sites KW - Remediation KW - Groundwater pollution KW - Plumes KW - Data Collections KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17294127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Lynch%2C+K+P&rft.aulast=Lynch&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Chlorinated+Solvent+DNAPL+Extent+Characterization+at+the+East+Gate+Disposal+Yard+%28Egdy%29%2C+Fort+Lewis%2C+Washington&rft.title=Chlorinated+Solvent+DNAPL+Extent+Characterization+at+the+East+Gate+Disposal+Yard+%28Egdy%29%2C+Fort+Lewis%2C+Washington&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Analysis of long-term sand accumulation at a harbor using 2DH numerical simulation AN - 1017953291; 2012-053594 AB - Long-term evolution of fillet beaches at Saugatuck Harbor on Lake Michigan was investigated through application of a proposed method for calculation of bypassing rate at inlets or around coastal structures. The method is based on implementation of a 2DH hydrodynamic and sediment transport model that provides spatial distributions of sediment transport vectors. Initial and existing bypassing rates at the harbor were calculated to establish sediment budgets for different time intervals over the past 100 years and evaluate the response of the neighboring beaches to the presence of the harbor. JF - Coastal Engineering AU - Dibajnia, Mohammad AU - Nairn, Robert B AU - Ross, Phillip A2 - Lakhan, V. Chris Y1 - 2004/10// PY - 2004 DA - October 2004 SP - 863 EP - 882 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 51 IS - 8-9 SN - 0378-3839, 0378-3839 KW - United States KW - lake-level changes KW - erosion KW - Allegan County Michigan KW - data processing KW - Kalamazoo River KW - dredging KW - Lake Michigan KW - transport KW - digital simulation KW - Great Lakes KW - Saugatuck Michigan KW - lacustrine sedimentation KW - Michigan Lower Peninsula KW - jetties KW - North America KW - HYDROSED KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - waves KW - sedimentation KW - harbors KW - channels KW - rates KW - deposition KW - Michigan KW - coastal sedimentation KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017953291?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=Coastal+Engineering&rft.atitle=Analysis+of+long-term+sand+accumulation+at+a+harbor+using+2DH+numerical+simulation&rft.au=Dibajnia%2C+Mohammad%3BNairn%2C+Robert+B%3BRoss%2C+Phillip&rft.aulast=Dibajnia&rft.aufirst=Mohammad&rft.date=2004-10-01&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=8-9&rft.spage=863&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering&rft.issn=03783839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coastaleng.2004.07.013 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03783839 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 13 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Allegan County Michigan; channels; coastal sedimentation; data processing; deposition; digital simulation; dredging; erosion; Great Lakes; harbors; HYDROSED; jetties; Kalamazoo River; lacustrine sedimentation; Lake Michigan; lake-level changes; Michigan; Michigan Lower Peninsula; North America; numerical models; rates; Saugatuck Michigan; sediment transport; sedimentation; transport; United States; waves DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2004.07.013 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORNHUSKER ARM AMMUNITION PLANT, HALL COUNTY, NEBRASKA, LAND DISPOSAL: INDUSTRIAL TRACKS 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 61, AND 62. AN - 36441709; 11192 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse eight full tracts and parts of two other tracts at the former Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (CHAAP) in Hall County, Nebraska are proposed. The former 12,042-acre CHAAP is located in the northwest corner of Hall County, approximately three miles west of Grand Island. Owned by the U.S. Army and operated by a contractor, it was active intermittently from 1942 to 1973, particularly during World War II the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, producing bombs, artillery shells, boosters, mines, and rockets. In 1989, the CHAAP was declared excess property and most maintenance within the facility ceased. In 1993, the Hall County Board of Supervisors established a CHAAP Reuse Committee, which developed a reuse plan for the installation. The 10 parcels under consideration, which encompass a total of 2,100 acres within the CHAAP, would be disposed of via negotiated sale to two potential purchasers, namely, the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) and Heritage Disposal and Storage LLC. NPPD could decide to construct and operate a coal-burning power plant on the subject property; this would be considered a secondary or connected action under the National Environmental Protection Act. Other connected actions for this potential project could include mining and transporting coal, constructing power transmission lines, and constructing and operating an ethanol production plant. Heritage would use the property for the storage, disposal, and recycling of conventional explosives. In addition to the proposed actions, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would lease the subject properties under the control of the U.S. Army, which would continue to use the area for demolition of obsolete CHAAP facilities, cleanup and remediation of the resulting wastes and contaminated sites, and agricultural purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative uses of the site would result in the production of electricity and other sources of energy and generally boost the local and regional economy. Employment for power plant construction and operation would contribute significantly to job rolls in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action could result in the removal of 1,450 acres of prime farmland from agricultural production. The proposed power plant could consume up to 2.0 million gallons of groundwater per day, which, in combination with other water uses on the site, could affect Plate River flows somewhat. NPPD's coal-fired plant would significantly degrade air quality in the vicinity of the site, which includes recreational land. All site developments would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and mar the visual aesthetics of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 103-337. JF - EPA number: 040467, 347 pages, September 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Defense Programs KW - Coal KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Leasing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Mines KW - Power Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant KW - Nebraska KW - Public Law 103-337, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36441709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORNHUSKER+ARM+AMMUNITION+PLANT%2C+HALL+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+LAND+DISPOSAL%3A+INDUSTRIAL+TRACKS+24%2C+32%2C+33%2C+34%2C+35%2C+36%2C+37%2C+47%2C+61%2C+AND+62.&rft.title=CORNHUSKER+ARM+AMMUNITION+PLANT%2C+HALL+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+LAND+DISPOSAL%3A+INDUSTRIAL+TRACKS+24%2C+32%2C+33%2C+34%2C+35%2C+36%2C+37%2C+47%2C+61%2C+AND+62.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EMERALD CREEK GARNET MINE, BENEWAH AND SHOSHONE COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 36435533; 11194 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a mining plan to exploit 327.5 acres of garnet reserves in and near the St. Maries River floodplain south of Fernwood in Benewah and Shoshone counties, Idaho is proposed. The tract to be mined contains 133 acres of wetlands and other waters of the US subject to regulation under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act), requiring issuance of a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to the mining interest, Emeralds Creek Garnet, Ltd. (ECG). The remaining 194.4 acres constitute upland. ECG, which has mined garnet in 15 permit areas near Fernwood since 1992, has 156,000 tons of proven reserves remaining in eight existing permit areas. Recovery of these reserves would require four to seven years of mining at an annual production rate of 30,000 tons. Mining in most of ECG's reserve areas is limited to less than a full mining year due to down time caused by adverse weather and/or time requirements for stream channel reclamation. Without the additional reserves within the proposed mining area, full-time mining would end after approximately one to two years, reducing employment potential in the area. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Regardless of the action alternative considered, ECG would mine starting at the upstream end and, moving downstream in a continuous manner, utilize both wet mining and dry mining panels Dredge mining of riparian areas and floodplain would require different mining techniques to accommodate space limitations, seasonal conditions, and proximity to existing streams and rivers. Wetlands losses would be mitigation via the creation of 29.4 acres of wetlands, measures to enhance the St. Maries River top-of-bank, and the planting of 16.9 acres of forested wildlife corridors. Wetland protection would be accomplished via provision of short-term fencing on all reclaimed and mitigated wetlands and long-term fencing on 64.4 acres of reclaimed and mitigated wetlands on their own ownership. The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) would involve the implementation of a 12-month wet and dry panel mining plan involving the aforementioned 133 acres of wetlands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would increase the total available reserves of garnet minerals, which are used as gems and abrasives. By meeting the market demand for garnet, the mine would increase the consumer base by demonstrating market longevity. The mine would provide specific reserve garnet materials used for water jet cutting and the oil industry. Mining activities would employ local workers and otherwise boost the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Selection of an action alternative would involve mining of 84.3 to 133 acres of wetlands, affecting forested wetlands, scrub shrub wetlands, and emergent wetlands. Approximately 693 trees would be incrementally removed over the mining period; these would be incrementally replaced with 4,410 trees over the same period. Habitat of the federally protected water howellia would be affected, particularly in oxbow areas, Mining activities in oxbows would also affect fish habitat. Annual water withdrawal would range from 588,000 to 1.76 million cubic feet, reducing in stream flow in the area 0.4 to 0.6 percent, respectively; this level of withdrawal would be insignificant. The probability of a 24-year or greater flood event would be four percent or less in any given year. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0137D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040469, Final EIS--478 pages and maps (CD-ROM), Technical Appendices--496 pages and maps, September 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Manufacturing KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Metals KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Idaho KW - St. Maries 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/36435533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EMERALD+CREEK+GARNET+MINE%2C+BENEWAH+AND+SHOSHONE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=EMERALD+CREEK+GARNET+MINE%2C+BENEWAH+AND+SHOSHONE+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORNHUSKER ARMS AMMUNITION PLANT, HALL COUNTY, NEBRASKA, LAND DISPOSAL: INDUSTRIAL TRACKS 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 61, AND 62. AN - 36435256; 11572 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse eight full tracts and parts of two other tracts at the former Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (CHAAP) in Hall County, Nebraska are proposed. The former 12,042-acre CHAAP is located in the northwest corner of Hall County, approximately three miles west of Grand Island. Owned by the U.S. Army and operated by a contractor, it was active intermittently from 1942 to 1973, particularly during World War II the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, producing bombs, artillery shells, boosters, mines, and rockets. In 1989, the CHAAP was declared excess property and most maintenance within the facility ceased. In 1993, the Hall County Board of Supervisors established a CHAAP Reuse Committee, which developed a reuse plan for the installation. The 10 parcels under consideration, which encompass a total of 2,100 acres within the CHAAP, would be disposed of via negotiated sale to two potential purchasers, namely, the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) and Heritage Disposal and Storage LLC. NPPD could decide to construct and operate a coal-burning power plant on the subject property; this would be considered a secondary or connected action under the National Environmental Protection Act. Other connected actions for this potential project could include mining and transporting coal, constructing power transmission lines, and constructing and operating an ethanol production plant. Heritage would use the property for the storage, disposal, and recycling of conventional explosives. In addition to the proposed actions, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would lease the subject properties under the control of the U.S. Army, which would continue to use the area for demolition of obsolete CHAAP facilities, cleanup and remediation of the resulting wastes and contaminated sites, and agricultural purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative uses of the site would result in the production of electricity and other sources of energy and generally boost the local and regional economy. Employment for power plant construction and operation would contribute significantly to job rolls in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action could result in the removal of 1,450 acres of prime farmland from agricultural production. The proposed power plant could consume up to 2.0 million gallons of groundwater per day, which, in combination with other water uses on the site, could affect Plate River flows somewhat. NPPD's coal-fired plant would significantly degrade air quality in the vicinity of the site, which includes recreational land. All site developments would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and mar the visual aesthetics of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 103-337. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0126D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050246, 349 pages, September 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Defense Programs KW - Coal KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Leasing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Mines KW - Power Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant KW - Nebraska KW - Public Law 103-337, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORNHUSKER+ARMS+AMMUNITION+PLANT%2C+HALL+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+LAND+DISPOSAL%3A+INDUSTRIAL+TRACKS+24%2C+32%2C+33%2C+34%2C+35%2C+36%2C+37%2C+47%2C+61%2C+AND+62.&rft.title=CORNHUSKER+ARMS+AMMUNITION+PLANT%2C+HALL+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+LAND+DISPOSAL%3A+INDUSTRIAL+TRACKS+24%2C+32%2C+33%2C+34%2C+35%2C+36%2C+37%2C+47%2C+61%2C+AND+62.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORNHUSKER ARMS AMMUNITION PLANT, HALL COUNTY, NEBRASKA, LAND DISPOSAL: INDUSTRIAL TRACKS 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 61, AND 62. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CORNHUSKER ARMS AMMUNITION PLANT, HALL COUNTY, NEBRASKA, LAND DISPOSAL: INDUSTRIAL TRACKS 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 61, AND 62. AN - 36370313; 050457F-050246_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse eight full tracts and parts of two other tracts at the former Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (CHAAP) in Hall County, Nebraska are proposed. The former 12,042-acre CHAAP is located in the northwest corner of Hall County, approximately three miles west of Grand Island. Owned by the U.S. Army and operated by a contractor, it was active intermittently from 1942 to 1973, particularly during World War II the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, producing bombs, artillery shells, boosters, mines, and rockets. In 1989, the CHAAP was declared excess property and most maintenance within the facility ceased. In 1993, the Hall County Board of Supervisors established a CHAAP Reuse Committee, which developed a reuse plan for the installation. The 10 parcels under consideration, which encompass a total of 2,100 acres within the CHAAP, would be disposed of via negotiated sale to two potential purchasers, namely, the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) and Heritage Disposal and Storage LLC. NPPD could decide to construct and operate a coal-burning power plant on the subject property; this would be considered a secondary or connected action under the National Environmental Protection Act. Other connected actions for this potential project could include mining and transporting coal, constructing power transmission lines, and constructing and operating an ethanol production plant. Heritage would use the property for the storage, disposal, and recycling of conventional explosives. In addition to the proposed actions, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would lease the subject properties under the control of the U.S. Army, which would continue to use the area for demolition of obsolete CHAAP facilities, cleanup and remediation of the resulting wastes and contaminated sites, and agricultural purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative uses of the site would result in the production of electricity and other sources of energy and generally boost the local and regional economy. Employment for power plant construction and operation would contribute significantly to job rolls in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action could result in the removal of 1,450 acres of prime farmland from agricultural production. The proposed power plant could consume up to 2.0 million gallons of groundwater per day, which, in combination with other water uses on the site, could affect Plate River flows somewhat. NPPD's coal-fired plant would significantly degrade air quality in the vicinity of the site, which includes recreational land. All site developments would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and mar the visual aesthetics of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 103-337. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 05-0126D, Volume 29, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 050246, 349 pages, September 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Coal KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Leasing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Mines KW - Power Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant KW - Nebraska KW - Public Law 103-337, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORNHUSKER+ARMS+AMMUNITION+PLANT%2C+HALL+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+LAND+DISPOSAL%3A+INDUSTRIAL+TRACKS+24%2C+32%2C+33%2C+34%2C+35%2C+36%2C+37%2C+47%2C+61%2C+AND+62.&rft.title=CORNHUSKER+ARMS+AMMUNITION+PLANT%2C+HALL+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+LAND+DISPOSAL%3A+INDUSTRIAL+TRACKS+24%2C+32%2C+33%2C+34%2C+35%2C+36%2C+37%2C+47%2C+61%2C+AND+62.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CORNHUSKER ARM AMMUNITION PLANT, HALL COUNTY, NEBRASKA, LAND DISPOSAL: INDUSTRIAL TRACKS 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 61, AND 62. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CORNHUSKER ARM AMMUNITION PLANT, HALL COUNTY, NEBRASKA, LAND DISPOSAL: INDUSTRIAL TRACKS 24, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 47, 61, AND 62. AN - 36363264; 11192-040467_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse eight full tracts and parts of two other tracts at the former Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (CHAAP) in Hall County, Nebraska are proposed. The former 12,042-acre CHAAP is located in the northwest corner of Hall County, approximately three miles west of Grand Island. Owned by the U.S. Army and operated by a contractor, it was active intermittently from 1942 to 1973, particularly during World War II the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, producing bombs, artillery shells, boosters, mines, and rockets. In 1989, the CHAAP was declared excess property and most maintenance within the facility ceased. In 1993, the Hall County Board of Supervisors established a CHAAP Reuse Committee, which developed a reuse plan for the installation. The 10 parcels under consideration, which encompass a total of 2,100 acres within the CHAAP, would be disposed of via negotiated sale to two potential purchasers, namely, the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) and Heritage Disposal and Storage LLC. NPPD could decide to construct and operate a coal-burning power plant on the subject property; this would be considered a secondary or connected action under the National Environmental Protection Act. Other connected actions for this potential project could include mining and transporting coal, constructing power transmission lines, and constructing and operating an ethanol production plant. Heritage would use the property for the storage, disposal, and recycling of conventional explosives. In addition to the proposed actions, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, which would lease the subject properties under the control of the U.S. Army, which would continue to use the area for demolition of obsolete CHAAP facilities, cleanup and remediation of the resulting wastes and contaminated sites, and agricultural purposes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Exploitative uses of the site would result in the production of electricity and other sources of energy and generally boost the local and regional economy. Employment for power plant construction and operation would contribute significantly to job rolls in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action could result in the removal of 1,450 acres of prime farmland from agricultural production. The proposed power plant could consume up to 2.0 million gallons of groundwater per day, which, in combination with other water uses on the site, could affect Plate River flows somewhat. NPPD's coal-fired plant would significantly degrade air quality in the vicinity of the site, which includes recreational land. All site developments would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat and mar the visual aesthetics of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Law 103-337. JF - EPA number: 040467, 347 pages, September 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Coal KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Leasing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Mines KW - Power Plants KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant KW - Nebraska KW - Public Law 103-337, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CORNHUSKER+ARM+AMMUNITION+PLANT%2C+HALL+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+LAND+DISPOSAL%3A+INDUSTRIAL+TRACKS+24%2C+32%2C+33%2C+34%2C+35%2C+36%2C+37%2C+47%2C+61%2C+AND+62.&rft.title=CORNHUSKER+ARM+AMMUNITION+PLANT%2C+HALL+COUNTY%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+LAND+DISPOSAL%3A+INDUSTRIAL+TRACKS+24%2C+32%2C+33%2C+34%2C+35%2C+36%2C+37%2C+47%2C+61%2C+AND+62.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UMR-IWW SYSTEM NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MISSISSIPI, AND WISCONSIN. AN - 36435521; 11188 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of navigation efficiency and ecosystem restoration plans for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway is proposed. Affected states include Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The Upper Mississippi River System is a multi-purpose resource that provides economic and and environmental benefits to the nation. The stakeholders of the system have expressed their desire to seek a balance between the economic, ecological, and social conditions to ensure that the system continues to be a nationally treasured ecological resource as well as an efficient national transportation system. Six navigation efficiency alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), and five ecosystem restoration alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Four of the six navigation efficiency alternatives are being carried forward for further consideration. The preferred ecosystem restoration alternative (Alternative D) would include management practices and cost-effective actions affecting a broad array of habitat types to restore the ecosystem to an intermediate level of functioning. Overall, the preferred dual-purpose plan would include a long-term framework for navigation efficiency improvements (Alternative 4 and 6) to include small-scale structural and nonstructural measures, new 1,200-foot locks and lock extensions, and appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for environmental impacts. First cost of the preferred plan is estimated at $2.4 billion. Annual switchboat operation costs are estimated at $18 million. The plan also includes a $5.3 billion long-term framework (Alternative D) ecosystem restoration plan to be accomplished in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the five affected states, and private, non-profit groups to improve the natural resources of the river through projects for habitat creation, water level management, fish passage, and floodplain restoration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Navigation improvements would ensure the viability of the waterway system in the context of anticipated growth in the waterborne transportation sector. Employment in the sector would thereby be supported. Ecosystem restoration measures would protect stream banks, reduce sedimentation, preserve wetland and other riverine habitat as well as significant extents of upland habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging would result in temporary, localized turbidity and disturbance of benthic habitat. Contaminated materials would be released into the water column in some cases. Disposal of dredged material would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife in the short-term. Increased use of the river system would continue to place stress on ecosystem resources, including fish habitat. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected in some cases. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0482D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040463, 681 pages, CD-ROM, September 28, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Illinois Waterway KW - Iowa KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Missouri KW - Wisconsin KW - Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-09-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UMR-IWW+SYSTEM+NAVIGATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+IOWA%2C+MISSISSIPI%2C+AND+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=UMR-IWW+SYSTEM+NAVIGATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+IOWA%2C+MISSISSIPI%2C+AND+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UMR-IWW SYSTEM NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MISSISSIPI, AND WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - UMR-IWW SYSTEM NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MISSISSIPI, AND WISCONSIN. AN - 36367129; 11188-040463_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of navigation efficiency and ecosystem restoration plans for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway is proposed. Affected states include Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wisconsin. The Upper Mississippi River System is a multi-purpose resource that provides economic and and environmental benefits to the nation. The stakeholders of the system have expressed their desire to seek a balance between the economic, ecological, and social conditions to ensure that the system continues to be a nationally treasured ecological resource as well as an efficient national transportation system. Six navigation efficiency alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), and five ecosystem restoration alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Four of the six navigation efficiency alternatives are being carried forward for further consideration. The preferred ecosystem restoration alternative (Alternative D) would include management practices and cost-effective actions affecting a broad array of habitat types to restore the ecosystem to an intermediate level of functioning. Overall, the preferred dual-purpose plan would include a long-term framework for navigation efficiency improvements (Alternative 4 and 6) to include small-scale structural and nonstructural measures, new 1,200-foot locks and lock extensions, and appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for environmental impacts. First cost of the preferred plan is estimated at $2.4 billion. Annual switchboat operation costs are estimated at $18 million. The plan also includes a $5.3 billion long-term framework (Alternative D) ecosystem restoration plan to be accomplished in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the five affected states, and private, non-profit groups to improve the natural resources of the river through projects for habitat creation, water level management, fish passage, and floodplain restoration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Navigation improvements would ensure the viability of the waterway system in the context of anticipated growth in the waterborne transportation sector. Employment in the sector would thereby be supported. Ecosystem restoration measures would protect stream banks, reduce sedimentation, preserve wetland and other riverine habitat as well as significant extents of upland habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging would result in temporary, localized turbidity and disturbance of benthic habitat. Contaminated materials would be released into the water column in some cases. Disposal of dredged material would displace vegetation and the associated wildlife in the short-term. Increased use of the river system would continue to place stress on ecosystem resources, including fish habitat. Habitat for federally protected species would be affected in some cases. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0482D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040463, 681 pages, CD-ROM, September 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wetlands KW - Illinois KW - Illinois Waterway KW - Iowa KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Missouri KW - Wisconsin KW - Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UMR-IWW+SYSTEM+NAVIGATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+IOWA%2C+MISSISSIPI%2C+AND+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=UMR-IWW+SYSTEM+NAVIGATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+ILLINOIS%2C+IOWA%2C+MISSISSIPI%2C+AND+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 17 IMPROVEMENTS, WASHINGTON AND COCOWINITY VICINITY, BEAUFORT COUNTY AND PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36430723; 11186 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 15.5-mile section of US 17 in the vicinity of the city of Washington and the town of Chocowinity in Beaufort County, North Carolina is proposed. The study area is approximately 16 miles in length and encompasses a portion of Beaufort County centered at Washington and the Tar/Pamlico River as well as a small portion of Pitt County. The communities of Hackney, Fredrick, and Old Ford are located within the study area. The levels of service along this stretch of highway are extremely low, and the corridor has an accident rate above the statewide level for such facilities. The crossing of the Tar/Pamlico River is substandard. US 17 through Beaufort County is part of the North Carolina Intrastate System, which is designed to support statewide growth and development objectives and to provide interconnections to major highways of contiguous states. The facility also serves as a national defense access, continuity, and emergency route. Three build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this abbreviated final EIS. All build alternatives would involve a new bridge across the Tar/Pamlico River. Access would be controlled via one or more interchanges. The lengths of the build alternatives range from 14.8 miles to 17.5 miles. Estimated costs of the preferred alternative is estimated at $230.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve an important north-south route, serving the abovementioned purposes as well as providing a route for important tourist travel in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 96 102 residences and 16 businesses. The project would involve displacement of 54 minority residences and four minority businesses. Rights-of-way development would also affect 7.2 acres of floodplain, 29 acres of prime and important farmland, and 9.5 acres of wetlands. Two roads would be closed, and four roads would require relocation. One or two historically significant structures and one historic district could be affected. The facility would traverse numerous streams, and 9.3 acres of Tar/Pamlico River buffer would be lost. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 87 sensitive receptors. Construction activities would encounter up to nine hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0428D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040461, 161 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-02-02-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36430723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+17+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+COCOWINITY+VICINITY%2C+BEAUFORT+COUNTY+AND+PITT+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=US+17+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+COCOWINITY+VICINITY%2C+BEAUFORT+COUNTY+AND+PITT+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36368309; 11185-040460_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36367421; 11185-040460_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 14 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36367178; 11185-040460_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36367177; 11185-040460_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36367122; 11185-040460_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36366837; 11185-040460_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36366753; 11185-040460_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 20 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36366501; 11185-040460_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 19 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36366434; 11185-040460_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 22 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36365972; 11185-040460_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 15 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36365812; 11185-040460_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36365732; 11185-040460_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 24 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36365567; 11185-040460_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36365488; 11185-040460_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365488?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36364750; 11185-040460_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364750?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36364655; 11185-040460_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 18 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36364093; 11185-040460_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 17 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36363923; 11185-040460_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 16 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36363831; 11185-040460_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 23 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36363648; 11185-040460_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 21 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36363466; 11185-040460_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36363433; 11185-040460_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36363347; 11185-040460_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 17 IMPROVEMENTS, WASHINGTON AND COCOWINITY VICINITY, BEAUFORT COUNTY AND PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 17 IMPROVEMENTS, WASHINGTON AND COCOWINITY VICINITY, BEAUFORT COUNTY AND PITT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36362443; 11186-040461_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 15.5-mile section of US 17 in the vicinity of the city of Washington and the town of Chocowinity in Beaufort County, North Carolina is proposed. The study area is approximately 16 miles in length and encompasses a portion of Beaufort County centered at Washington and the Tar/Pamlico River as well as a small portion of Pitt County. The communities of Hackney, Fredrick, and Old Ford are located within the study area. The levels of service along this stretch of highway are extremely low, and the corridor has an accident rate above the statewide level for such facilities. The crossing of the Tar/Pamlico River is substandard. US 17 through Beaufort County is part of the North Carolina Intrastate System, which is designed to support statewide growth and development objectives and to provide interconnections to major highways of contiguous states. The facility also serves as a national defense access, continuity, and emergency route. Three build alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this abbreviated final EIS. All build alternatives would involve a new bridge across the Tar/Pamlico River. Access would be controlled via one or more interchanges. The lengths of the build alternatives range from 14.8 miles to 17.5 miles. Estimated costs of the preferred alternative is estimated at $230.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve an important north-south route, serving the abovementioned purposes as well as providing a route for important tourist travel in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 96 102 residences and 16 businesses. The project would involve displacement of 54 minority residences and four minority businesses. Rights-of-way development would also affect 7.2 acres of floodplain, 29 acres of prime and important farmland, and 9.5 acres of wetlands. Two roads would be closed, and four roads would require relocation. One or two historically significant structures and one historic district could be affected. The facility would traverse numerous streams, and 9.3 acres of Tar/Pamlico River buffer would be lost. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 87 sensitive receptors. Construction activities would encounter up to nine hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0428D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040461, 161 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-02-02-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+17+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+COCOWINITY+VICINITY%2C+BEAUFORT+COUNTY+AND+PITT+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=US+17+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+WASHINGTON+AND+COCOWINITY+VICINITY%2C+BEAUFORT+COUNTY+AND+PITT+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 24] T2 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36361195; 11185-040460_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361195?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SANTA CRUZ RIVER, PASEO DE LAS IGLESIAS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16369295; 11185 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan to reverse the environmental degradation of the Paseo de las Iglesias reach of the Santa Cruz River in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The Paseo de las Iglesias reach consists of that portion of the river and its tributaries, including the New and Old West Branch tributaries,extending seven miles downstream from Los Reales Road to West Congress Street. The primary problem within the study area is the severe ecosystem degradation and loss of riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River and its tributaries. Water once flowed perennially and supported dense growth of cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite along the reach increasing appropriation of surface and groundwater to support expansion of agriculture, accelerated head cutting resulting from human interference and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the verdant Santa Cruz riparian corridor to a dry ephemeral was with both hardened and unstable banks. Arid Southwest riparian ecosystems are designated as critically endangered habitat. From 75 to 90 percent of all wildlife in the arid Southwest is riparian during some part of its life cycle. The recommended plan would feature irrigated plantings of mesquite and riparian shrub on terraces above the low-flow channel and in the historic floodplain, with small areas of emergent marsh and cottonwood-willow habitat located at water harvesting features scattered throughout the project. Subsurface water harvesting basins would be developed and planted at the confluences of eight tributaries and upstream of six grade control structures. A variety of methods would be used to provide permanent irrigation systems for all planted areas including the basins. Reaches characterized by steep, eroded banks would be, modified by cutting back into the historic floodplain to create gentler and more stable slopes graded at a five-to-one vertical slope and planted. The recommended alternative is mesquite dominated, with 718 acres of that cover type. The plan would include decomposed granite trails, armadas, benches, parking, and trail links that would provide opportunities to a variety of recreational users. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $92.1 million, and annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.9 million. The benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.29. Though flood damage reduction opportunities were analyzed, hydrologic/hydraulic, and economic analysis indicated that flood control could not be justified. In addition to the recommended alternative, this draft EIS considers two other action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the acreage of functional riparian and floodplain habitat within the study area; increase wildlife habitat diversity by providing a mix of riparian habitats within the river corridor, riparian fringe, and historic floodplain; provide passive recreation opportunities; provide incidental benefits with respect to flood control, reduced ban erosion, reduced sedimentation, and improved surface water quality; and integrate the desires of local stakeholders consistent with federal policy and local planning efforts. Approximately 1,100 acres of riparian habitat, including 718 acres of mesquite, 356 acres of mixed meso-riparian shrub-scrub habitat, and 18 acres of cottonwood-willow and almost six acres of emergent marsh. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Once bank stabilization was complete, land use along the reach could include commercial and residential development that would displace natural habitat. Soil restoration activities would temporarily disturb vegetation along the entirety of the reach. Minor permanent changes to the flood conveyance capacity of the Santa Cruz River would occur, but these changes would not increase the potential for flooding. LEGAL MANDATES: Water Resources and Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). JF - EPA number: 040460, 466 pages and maps, September 27, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Santa Cruz River KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16369295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-09-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SANTA+CRUZ+RIVER%2C+PASEO+DE+LAS+IGLESIAS%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - Airborne coastal mapping and charting AN - 39936236; 3866312 AU - Lillycrop, W J Y1 - 2004/09/21/ PY - 2004 DA - 2004 Sep 21 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 5500:Geoscience UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39936236?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=Airborne+coastal+mapping+and+charting&rft.au=Lillycrop%2C+W+J&rft.aulast=Lillycrop&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2004-09-21&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: American Society for Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 210, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA; URL: www.asprs.org N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36433589; 11150 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 10.75 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 16.2 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040425, 617 pages and maps, September 2, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36433589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36378247; 11150-040425_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 10.75 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 16.2 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040425, 617 pages and maps, September 2, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - US 6, FROM I-15 IN SPANISH FORK TO I-70 IN GREEN RIVER IN UTAH, WASATCH, CARBON, AND EMERY COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 36371196; 11150-040425_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 127 miles of US 6 from Interstate 15 (I-15) in Spanish Fork to I-70 near Green River in Utah, Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery counties, Utah is proposed. US 6 constitutes a part of the national highway system and operates as a major east-west highway serving an important statewide transportation function by linking two major interstates, I-15 and I-70. US 6 is an important link between the rural communities of central and southeastern Utah and the populous Wasatch Front. Segments of US were constructed over 60 years ago and do not meet current safety design requirements. The increased travel demand on US 6 due to population growth along the Wasatch Front has resulted in a decreased level of service that does not meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official's guidance for a highway of this class. Design flaws and increased traffic volumes have resulted in unacceptable accident and fatality rates for a roadway of this type. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The Passing Lane Alternative would add passing lanes at selected locations along the corridor. This alternative would provide four-lane sections in areas on both sides of the highway where passing is required. The Four Lane Alternative would provide two travel lanes in each direction through the entire corridor. Under either alternative, existing substandard design elements would be upgraded to current design standards and median barriers or other median treatments would be added as appropriate. The Peerless port of entry would be relocated to improve safety as a component of either action alternative. Costs of the Passing Lane and Four Lane alternatives are estimated at $595.8 million and $678.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the highway to allow it to meet current design standards while reducing both the overall accident and fatality rates. The proposed action would also reduce overall congestion, generally improve the level of service, and maintain the highway as a key component of Utah's transportation network. Either action alternative would improve the level of service to C or better. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The Passing Lane Alternative would require displacement of 10.75 acres of wetlands, 1,779 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. Travel times under this alternative would be greater than under the Four Lane Alternative, increasing user costs, and a few segments of the highway would provide an unacceptable level of service. The Four-Lane Alternative would require displacement of 16.2 acres of wetlands, 2,153 acres of wildlife habitat, 50 acres of prime farmland, 15 residences, seven businesses, and seven farm parcels. This alternative would increase impervious surface within the corridor significantly more than the Passing Lane Alternative. Either alternative would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at 96 sensitive receptor sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040425, 617 pages and maps, September 2, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=US+6%2C+FROM+I-15+IN+SPANISH+FORK+TO+I-70+IN+GREEN+RIVER+IN+UTAH%2C+WASATCH%2C+CARBON%2C+AND+EMERY+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling crude oil droplet-sediment aggregation in nearshore waters. AN - 66933322; 15461172 AB - This paper describes a modeling approach that simulates changes in particle size distribution and density due to aggregation by extending the Smoluchowski aggregation kinetic model to particles of different density. Batch flocculation studies were conducted for clay, colloidal silica, crude oil, clay-crude oil, and silica-crude oil systems. A parameter estimation algorithm was used to estimate homogeneous collision efficiencies (alphaHOMO) for single-particle-type systems and heterogeneous collision efficiencies (alphaHET) for two-particle-type systems. Homogeneous collision efficiency values (alphaHOMO) were greater for clay (0.7) and for crude oil (0.3) than for silica (0.01). Thus, clay and crude oil were classified as cohesive particles while silica was classified as noncohesive. Heterogeneous collision efficiencies were similar for oil-clay (0.4) and oil-silica (0.3) systems. Thus, crude oil increases the aggregation of noncohesive particles. Data from the calibrated aggregation model were used to estimate apparent first-order flocculation rates (K') for oil, clay, and silica and apparent second-order flocculation rates (K'') for oil and clay in oil-clay systems and for oil and silica in oil-silica systems. For oil or clay systems, aggregation Damköhler numbers ranged from 0.1 to 1.0, suggesting that droplet coalescence and clay aggregation can occur on the same time scales as oil resurfacing and clay settling, respectively. For mixed oil-clay systems, the relative time scales of clay settling and clay-oil aggregation were also within an order of magnitude. Thus, oil-clay aggregation should be considered when modeling crude oil transport in nearshore waters. JF - Environmental science & technology AU - Sterling, Michael C AU - Bonner, James S AU - Page, Cheryl A AU - Fuller, Christopher B AU - Ernest, Andrew N S AU - Autenrieth, Robin L AD - Environmental and Water Resources Division, Civil Engineering Department, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-3136, USA. Michael.C.Sterling@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/09/01/ PY - 2004 DA - 2004 Sep 01 SP - 4627 EP - 4634 VL - 38 IS - 17 SN - 0013-936X, 0013-936X KW - Aluminum Silicates KW - 0 KW - Petroleum KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - clay KW - 1302-87-0 KW - Silicon Dioxide KW - 7631-86-9 KW - Index Medicus KW - Ecology KW - Aluminum Silicates -- chemistry KW - Seawater KW - Particle Size KW - Flocculation KW - Silicon Dioxide -- chemistry KW - Geologic Sediments -- chemistry KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- analysis KW - Petroleum -- analysis KW - Models, Chemical UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66933322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+science+%26+technology&rft.atitle=Modeling+crude+oil+droplet-sediment+aggregation+in+nearshore+waters.&rft.au=Sterling%2C+Michael+C%3BBonner%2C+James+S%3BPage%2C+Cheryl+A%3BFuller%2C+Christopher+B%3BErnest%2C+Andrew+N+S%3BAutenrieth%2C+Robin+L&rft.aulast=Sterling&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=17&rft.spage=4627&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+science+%26+technology&rft.issn=0013936X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2005-02-03 N1 - Date created - 2004-10-05 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The potential of screening for agents of toxicity using gene expression fingerprinting in Chironomus tentans AN - 51499511; 2007-012949 JF - Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management AU - Perkins, E J AU - Furey, J S AU - Davis, E AU - Burton, G Allen, Jr AU - Munawar, M AU - Bierman, V J Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - September 2004 SP - 399 EP - 405 PB - Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA VL - 7 IS - 3 SN - 1463-4988, 1463-4988 KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - zinc KW - copper KW - Neoptera KW - lead KW - organochlorine pesticides KW - bioavailability KW - Pterygota KW - remediation KW - dredging KW - toxicity KW - sediments KW - Invertebrata KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - Endopterygota KW - ecology KW - heavy metals KW - Insecta KW - insecticides KW - bioassays KW - habitat KW - organic compounds KW - Arthropoda KW - RNA KW - metals KW - Mandibulata KW - Chironomus KW - DDT KW - hydrocarbons KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - pesticides KW - Diptera KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - microorganisms KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51499511?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=Aquatic+Ecosystem+Health+%26+Management&rft.atitle=The+potential+of+screening+for+agents+of+toxicity+using+gene+expression+fingerprinting+in+Chironomus+tentans&rft.au=Perkins%2C+E+J%3BFurey%2C+J+S%3BDavis%2C+E%3BBurton%2C+G+Allen%2C+Jr%3BMunawar%2C+M%3BBierman%2C+V+J&rft.aulast=Perkins&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=399&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aquatic+Ecosystem+Health+%26+Management&rft.issn=14634988&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F14634980490479705 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14634988 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 5th international symposium on the Sediment quality assessment N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - PubXState - PA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aromatic hydrocarbons; Arthropoda; bioassays; bioavailability; Chironomus; chlorinated hydrocarbons; copper; DDT; Diptera; dredging; ecology; Endopterygota; habitat; halogenated hydrocarbons; heavy metals; hydrocarbons; Insecta; insecticides; Invertebrata; lead; Mandibulata; metals; microorganisms; Neoptera; organic compounds; organochlorine pesticides; pesticides; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Pterygota; remediation; RNA; sediments; toxicity; zinc DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14634980490479705 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Solid phase microextraction fibers for estimating the toxicity of nitroaromatic compounds AN - 51496540; 2007-012948 JF - Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management AU - Conder, J M AU - Lotufo, G R AU - Bowen, A T AU - Turner, P K AU - La Point, T W AU - Steevens, J A AU - Burton, G Allen, Jr AU - Munawar, M AU - Bierman, V J Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - September 2004 SP - 387 EP - 397 PB - Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA VL - 7 IS - 3 SN - 1463-4988, 1463-4988 KW - biodegradation KW - degradation KW - pollutants KW - surface water KW - solutes KW - pollution KW - bioassays KW - trinitrotoluene KW - bioavailability KW - biota KW - bioaccumulation KW - solid phase KW - organic compounds KW - explosives KW - toxicity KW - sediments KW - aquatic environment KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51496540?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=Aquatic+Ecosystem+Health+%26+Management&rft.atitle=Solid+phase+microextraction+fibers+for+estimating+the+toxicity+of+nitroaromatic+compounds&rft.au=Conder%2C+J+M%3BLotufo%2C+G+R%3BBowen%2C+A+T%3BTurner%2C+P+K%3BLa+Point%2C+T+W%3BSteevens%2C+J+A%3BBurton%2C+G+Allen%2C+Jr%3BMunawar%2C+M%3BBierman%2C+V+J&rft.aulast=Conder&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=387&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aquatic+Ecosystem+Health+%26+Management&rft.issn=14634988&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F14634980490479679 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14634988 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 5th international symposium on the Sediment quality assessment N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 45 N1 - PubXState - PA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2014-03-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquatic environment; bioaccumulation; bioassays; bioavailability; biodegradation; biota; degradation; explosives; organic compounds; pollutants; pollution; sediments; solid phase; solutes; surface water; toxicity; trinitrotoluene DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14634980490479679 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Development of a cell-based screening assay for invertebrate molting disruption AN - 20608006; 5997695 AB - The use of transgenic cell lines for relatively rapid, sensitive and reproducible assays for the detection and semi-quantitative measurement of contaminants in environmental media has increased in recent years. For example, many accepted assays rely on the arylhydrocarbon receptor interaction to screen for dioxins and related compounds in environmental samples. However, these systems are poorly developed or absent in lower organisms, and since arylhydrocarbon receptor interaction is a necessary early step in the development of dioxin toxicity, dioxins are relatively non-toxic to invertebrates. As a result, assays based on this interaction have no relevance for assessing the risk of environmental contamination to these organisms at the base of all food chains. Alternatively, arthropods possess highly developed ecdysone receptor systems that can be used similarly to the arylhydrocarbon receptor system as the basis of an assay with high relevance for these important classes of invertebrates. A new transgenic cell line was developed in order to create a rapid assay for ecdysone interactions to detect and measure the activity of environmental contaminants that are chronically toxic to lower organisms, specifically the invertebrate phylum Arthropoda. The cell line is based on Invitrogen's registered Ecdysone-Inducible Mammalian Expression System, which consists of two plasmids, one of which expresses the heterodimeric ecdysteroid receptor while the other contains the receptor-ligand response element E/GRE. When ecdysone or another ligand having ecdysteroid activity is present, the binding of the receptor-ligand complex to the response element results in transcription of the reporter gene ( beta -galactosidase), the activity of which can be monitored colorimetrically. The plasmids were stably transfected into HepG2 human liver cells. Preliminary results show that Aroclor 1242, which is known to inhibit molting in invertebrates, also inhibited molting in juvenile crawfish (Procambarus clarkii) at 100 mu g l super(-1) and normal ecdysteroid response in this new transgenic cell line, HepG2-EcR, at similar concentrations indicating that this new assay shows promise for future use as a screening tool. JF - Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management AU - Inouye, L S AU - Ang, C-Y AU - McFarland, V A AD - USACE-ERDC, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, inouyeL@wes.army.mil Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - Sep 2004 SP - 407 EP - 413 VL - 7 IS - 3 SN - 1463-4988, 1463-4988 KW - Arochlor 1254 KW - Dioxin KW - Red swamp crayfish KW - Reporter gene transcription KW - Transgenic cell line KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA Aquaculture Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Toxicology Abstracts KW - Food chains KW - Ecosystems KW - Biomarkers KW - Carcinogens KW - Cultured organisms KW - Hormones KW - Toxicity tests KW - invertebrates KW - Bioassay KW - Gene expression KW - Food Chains KW - Invertebrata KW - Sediment Contamination KW - Pollution indicators KW - Receptors KW - Assays KW - Transcription KW - Plasmids KW - Colorimetric techniques KW - Bioassays KW - Water Pollution Effects KW - Transgenic KW - Toxicity testing KW - Invertebrates KW - Molting KW - Dioxins KW - Pollutants KW - arthropods KW - Freshwater crustaceans KW - Inhibitors KW - Moulting KW - Steroids KW - Procambarus clarkii KW - Ecdysons KW - Sediment pollution KW - Pollution detection KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Toxicity KW - Pollutant identification KW - Sediments KW - Risk KW - Arthropoda KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Liver KW - aquatic ecosystems KW - Ligands KW - Q3 08583:Shellfish culture KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q1 08583:Shellfish culture KW - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - X 24221:Toxicity testing UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20608006?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=Aquatic+Ecosystem+Health+%26+Management&rft.atitle=Development+of+a+cell-based+screening+assay+for+invertebrate+molting+disruption&rft.au=Inouye%2C+L+S%3BAng%2C+C-Y%3BMcFarland%2C+V+A&rft.aulast=Inouye&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=407&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aquatic+Ecosystem+Health+%26+Management&rft.issn=14634988&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F14634980490484006 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Special Issue: Assessing Risks and Impacts of Contaminants in Sediments. N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Sediment pollution; Ecdysons; Pollution detection; Hydrocarbons; Receptors; Transcription; Cultured organisms; Toxicity; Carcinogens; Biomarkers; Pollutant identification; Colorimetric techniques; Plasmids; Toxicity tests; Hormones; Gene expression; Bioaccumulation; Bioassays; Freshwater crustaceans; Moulting; Inhibitors; Pollution indicators; Steroids; Ligands; Transgenic; Molting; Toxicity testing; Arthropoda; Food chains; arthropods; Liver; Assays; aquatic ecosystems; Sediments; Dioxins; invertebrates; Risk; Food Chains; Ecosystems; Pollutants; Water Pollution Effects; Sediment Contamination; Invertebrates; Bioassay; Procambarus clarkii; Invertebrata DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14634980490484006 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Xenon Spectral Gamma Penetrometer Probe Characterization and Calibration AN - 19962797; 7173679 AB - Ex situ analysis to characterize subsurface media for gamma-emitting radionuclides is time-consuming and costly. A Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System (SCAPS) spectral gamma penetro-meter probe was designed using newly developed small-diameter high-pressure xenon gas gamma ray detector technology for the in situ speciation (identification) and quantification of subsurface gamma-emitting contaminants. This report documents the design, calibration, laboratory studies, and functionality field demonstration conducted to characterize the capabilities and limitations of the xenon spectral gamma probe. Results and comparative analysis of side-by-side simultaneous laboratory investigation/evaluation studies using SCAPS xenon spectral gamma and sodium iodine spectral gamma probes are also documented. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Ballard, J H AU - Morgan, J C AU - Sparrow, CA Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - Sep 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Speciation KW - penetrometers KW - Laboratory testing KW - Laboratories KW - Probes KW - Evaluation KW - Sodium KW - Xenon KW - Calibrations KW - Pollutants KW - Radioisotopes KW - Iodine KW - Waterways KW - Technology KW - P 8000:RADIATION KW - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19962797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Ballard%2C+J+H%3BMorgan%2C+J+C%3BSparrow%2C+CA&rft.aulast=Ballard&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Xenon+Spectral+Gamma+Penetrometer+Probe+Characterization+and+Calibration&rft.title=Xenon+Spectral+Gamma+Penetrometer+Probe+Characterization+and+Calibration&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-01 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of a real-time Taqman registered PCR method for assessment of pathogenic coliform contamination in sediment: A risk-based approach AN - 19899231; 5997696 AB - Management of contaminated sediments has focused predominately on chemical agents, overshadowing risks posed by pathogenic microorganisms. Current accepted bacterial indicator methods do not provide defensible data with respect to the occurrence and types of pathogens in sediments. In an effort to adapt new defensible methods for assessing the risk posed by pathogens in sediments, we evaluated the sensitivity of a commercially available real-time polymerase chain reaction TaqMan registered Escherichia coli 0157:H7 detection kit. The lower limit of linear quantitation of this assay was experimentally determined in sediment and sediment extract samples spiked with known amounts of E. coli 0157:H7 DNA. Parallel control experiments were conducted in pure water samples spiked with known amounts of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 DNA. The lower limit of quantification of the TaqMan registered assay was 1000 colony forming units when interrogating 100 mg sediment samples. In contrast, the assay was 20-fold more sensitive with a lower limit of quantification of 50 colony forming units in pure water and sediment extract samples. These results suggest that the sensitivity of the TaqMan registered Escherichia coli 0157:H7 detection kit is more dependent on recovery of the desired target from the sediment matrix than efficiency of polymerase chain reaction amplification. The potential human health risk associated with the lower limit of quantification of the Taqman registered assay in the spiked sediment samples was estimated using a Beta-Poisson dose-response model. Using this approach, lower limit values corresponded to exposure levels of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 that meet United States Environmental Protection Agency accepted illness rates for recreational swimming. JF - Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management AU - Indest, K J AU - Betts, K AU - Furey, J S AU - Fredrickson, H L AU - Hinton, V R AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, indestk@wes.army.mil Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - Sep 2004 SP - 415 EP - 424 VL - 7 IS - 3 SN - 1463-4988, 1463-4988 KW - Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology; Pollution Abstracts; Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Contamination KW - Chemical Analysis KW - Microbial contamination KW - Microbiological Studies KW - Sediment analysis KW - Public health KW - Escherichia coli KW - Sediment Contamination KW - Biological pollutants KW - Sediment chemistry KW - Pathogenic bacteria KW - Aquatic ecosystems KW - Environmental protection KW - Escherichia Coli KW - EPA KW - Sediment-water interface KW - Recreation KW - Microorganisms KW - Water samples KW - Contaminants KW - Chemical analysis KW - Water sampling KW - Bathing KW - Models KW - Colonies KW - Public Health KW - Dose-response effects KW - Polymerase chain reaction KW - Chemical pollution KW - Quantitation KW - Sediment pollution KW - Swimming KW - Coliforms KW - Data processing KW - Pathogens KW - Sediments KW - USA KW - Analytical Methods KW - Recreation areas KW - Analytical techniques KW - DNA KW - aquatic ecosystems KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants KW - A 01116:Bacteria KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments KW - J 02450:Ecology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19899231?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=Aquatic+Ecosystem+Health+%26+Management&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+a+real-time+Taqman+registered+PCR+method+for+assessment+of+pathogenic+coliform+contamination+in+sediment%3A+A+risk-based+approach&rft.au=Indest%2C+K+J%3BBetts%2C+K%3BFurey%2C+J+S%3BFredrickson%2C+H+L%3BHinton%2C+V+R&rft.aulast=Indest&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=415&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aquatic+Ecosystem+Health+%26+Management&rft.issn=14634988&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F14634980490479714 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Special Issue: Assessing Risks and Impacts of Contaminants in Sediments. N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Sediment pollution; Sediment chemistry; Pathogenic bacteria; Bathing; Microbial contamination; Environmental protection; Sediment analysis; Public health; Sediment-water interface; Analytical techniques; Water samples; Microorganisms; Biological pollutants; Chemical analysis; Coliforms; Swimming; Data processing; Contamination; Pathogens; Aquatic ecosystems; Sediments; Models; Colonies; Recreation; DNA; Polymerase chain reaction; Contaminants; Quantitation; EPA; Water sampling; Recreation areas; Dose-response effects; Chemical pollution; aquatic ecosystems; Escherichia Coli; Public Health; Analytical Methods; Chemical Analysis; Sediment Contamination; Microbiological Studies; Escherichia coli; USA DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14634980490479714 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - A Simulation Model on the Competition for Light of Meadow-forming and Canopy-forming Aquatic Macrophytes at High and Low Nutrient Availability AN - 19442201; 7173649 AB - A simulation model has been developed that focuses on the ability of two competing submersed macrophytes, meadow-forming and canopy-forming, to maintain their biomass under different environmental conditions. Vallisneria americana (American wildcelery) serves as the example for meadow-forming plants and Stuckenia pectinata (until recently known as Potamogeton pectinatus or sago pondweed) for canopy-forming plants. The model can be used to predict changes in species composition of submersed vegetation as a result of changes in the availability of resources in shallow freshwater bodies. In the model, the two plant species compete for light and exhibit different species-specific relationships between plant tissue nitrogen (N):phosphorus (P) ratio and plant biomass production. The latter species-specific relationships have not been determined in V. americana and P. pectinatus, and, therefore, for calibration of the model, the specific relationships between plant tissue N:P ratio and reduction in plant biomass production of Zannichellia palustris and Elodea canadensis were used. The latter species have habitat preferences similar to those of V. americana and P. pectinatus. Competition for light proved to be a far more important determinant of species composition than the availabilities of N and P in the sediment. Intraspecific competition for light did not occur in V. americana in a temperate climate, but it was observed at densities greater than or equal to 8-9 plants m super(-2) in a more southern climate. It occurred in P. pectinatus at plant densities greater than or equal to 4-5 plants m super(-2). Coexistence of both species occurred only at V. americana:P. pectinatus plant density ratios of 28:2 to 26:4 plants m super(-2) in the absence of N and P limitation of growth, irrespective of climate (temperate and more southern climates tested). At density ratios higher than 28:2, V. americana excludes P. pectinatus, and at density ratios lower than 26:4, P. pectinatus excludes V. americana. The density ratio range at which coexistence was possible increased with water turbidity between extinction coefficients of 0.43 and 2.00 m super(-1). Light interception by epiphytes at a level of 25 percent of observed maxima in the Upper Mississippi River allowed coexistence in clear water but prevented it in turbid water in a more southern climate. Under N limiting conditions for both species, P. pectinatus displaced V. americana, but under P limiting conditions for P. pectinatus, V. americana won the competition. Coexistence was expanded by fertilization with both N and P. These results indicate that P. pectinatus has a high potential of replacing V. americana when allowed to colonize gaps in dense V. americana stands. N limiting conditions strengthen and P limiting conditions weaken the competitive advantage of P. pectinatus relative to that of V. americana, while raised N and P availabilities enhance the potential for coexistence of both species. These notions can be used as a basis for management of submersed macrophytes. It is recommended to verify/determine the species-specific relationships between plant tissue N:P ratio and plant biomass production of V. americana and P. pectinatus and validate the model coexistence results by comparison with outcomes from plant competition experiments. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Best, EPH AU - Kiker, G A AU - Boyd, WA Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - September 2004 KW - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Plant Tissues KW - Potamogeton pectinatus KW - Population density KW - Water resources KW - Species Composition KW - Elodea canadensis KW - Interspecific relationships KW - Extinction coefficient KW - Plant Growth KW - Density KW - Climates KW - Climate KW - Aquatic plants KW - Biomass KW - Model Studies KW - Pectinatus KW - Macrophytes KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Community composition KW - Sago Pondweed KW - Vallisneria americana KW - Epiphytes KW - Turbidity KW - Zannichellia palustris KW - Q1 08221:General KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19442201?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Water+Resources+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Best%2C+EPH%3BKiker%2C+G+A%3BBoyd%2C+WA&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=EPH&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=A+Simulation+Model+on+the+Competition+for+Light+of+Meadow-forming+and+Canopy-forming+Aquatic+Macrophytes+at+High+and+Low+Nutrient+Availability&rft.title=A+Simulation+Model+on+the+Competition+for+Light+of+Meadow-forming+and+Canopy-forming+Aquatic+Macrophytes+at+High+and+Low+Nutrient+Availability&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 - RPRT T1 - Exploration of the Potential for Phytoremediation of Lead-Based-Paint-Contaminated Soil at Fort Lewis, WA AN - 19441120; 7173678 AB - The current study was conducted to explore the potential for two phytoremediation strategies to remediate lead-based-paint- (LBP) contaminated soil from Fort Lewis, WA, i.e., phytoextraction and phytostabilization. The specific objectives were to (1) determine the potential for phytoextraction and phytostabilization of metals from Pb-contaminated soil from Fort Lewis in herbaceous plants, (2) evaluate the effects of the vegetation on the leachability of the soil, and (3) evaluate the influence of differences in soil characteristics on the vegetation responses. The tests were performed using Alopecurus pratensis (meadow foxtail) and Festuca rubra (red fescue), i.e., two metal-tolerant turf grass species, with current geographical distributions that include the State of Washington. The plants were incubated with field soil mixtures in a greenhouse on the U.S. ERDC-EL grounds in Vicksburg, MS. Test results indicated that A. pratensis produced on average about twice as much plant biomass as F. rubra in 49 days, i.e., 546 versus 249 g DW m super(-2). Both species allocated most of their biomass below ground, and showed the tendency to accumulate Pb solely below ground without upward transport, and to accumulate Zn largely below ground with limited upward transport. The latter characteristic is typical for plant species used in phytostabilization strategies. A. pratensis was the better metal accumulator, which allocated a relatively higher proportion of its biomass in roots, but was also more sensitive to Zn than F. rubra. Presence of the vegetation increased the leachability of the soil considerably, but the leachable metal fractions were extremely low (0-0.3 percent) compared to the total soil metal levels. The metals contained in the plant mass represented maximally 2.2 percent of the total metals presumed to be present on site, with only a very small fraction contained in the above-ground, easily harvestable, biomass. Soil-Pb was less bioavailable and accumulated to a lesser extent in the plant material than Zn, probably because Pb was largely in the form of paint crystals. Increasing soil-Pb levels, concomitant with soil-Zn levels, significantly reduced the shoot and root biomass, increased the tissue-Zn concentrations in the shoots, and increased the tissue-Pb and -Zn concentrations in the roots. Increasing soil organic matter and moisture contents generally stimulated the production of shoot and root biomass. It was concluded that phytostabilization appears to be a strategy that would considerably reduce ecological risk posed by LBP-contaminated soils at Fort Lewis. The vegetation would concentrate most of the mobile Pb-fraction of the LBP in its root zone, and prevent metals from off-site release as parts of dust particles or dissolved within surface runoff. A. pratensis would be the most suitable species for use on soil contaminated by Pb alone, and F. rubra on soil contaminated by both Pb and Zn. Regular mowing and mulching would be a viable management option, which would not spread Pb around and leave the vegetation intact. Potentially even lower bioavailability and solubility of the LBP-related Pb in the soil may be attained by removal of the upper 7.5 cm of the soil or amendment with phosphate rocks. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Best, EPH AU - Larson, S L AU - Geter, K N Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - Sep 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - Soil remediation KW - Geographical distribution KW - Alopecurus pratensis KW - Heavy metals KW - Grasses KW - Soil characteristics KW - Roots KW - Crystals KW - Mowing KW - Dust KW - Lead KW - Soil KW - USA, Washington KW - Bioavailability KW - Phytoremediation KW - Meadows KW - Zinc KW - shoots KW - Military KW - phytoremediation KW - plant biomass KW - Metals KW - Solubility KW - Organic matter KW - Vegetation KW - Soils (organic) KW - Soil contamination KW - Turf KW - Biomass KW - Greenhouses KW - Shoots KW - Soil pollution KW - Phosphate KW - Plants KW - Festuca rubra KW - Runoff KW - Paints KW - W 30950:Waste Treatment & Pollution Clean-up KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19441120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Biotechnology+Research+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Best%2C+EPH%3BLarson%2C+S+L%3BGeter%2C+K+N&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=EPH&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Exploration+of+the+Potential+for+Phytoremediation+of+Lead-Based-Paint-Contaminated+Soil+at+Fort+Lewis%2C+WA&rft.title=Exploration+of+the+Potential+for+Phytoremediation+of+Lead-Based-Paint-Contaminated+Soil+at+Fort+Lewis%2C+WA&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Topical Application of Phosphate Amendments to Lead-Contaminated Small Arms Firing Range Soils AN - 19439053; 7173648 AB - Because of the need for lead containment within small arms firing range (SAFR) impact areas, phosphate amendment has been proposed to reduce the release of lead via the surface and groundwater pathway. Both field and laboratory studies have evaluated the use of phosphates to stabilize lead in SAFR soils. The main goal of these studies was to determine the effectiveness of in situ phosphate treatment by demonstrating that phosphate addition to lead-contaminated soils resulted in soils that were stable to lead-leaching as measured by various standards. Because these studies were conducted using either large- or small-scale field demonstration projects or static laboratory procedures that were not capable of simulating conditions on actual ranges, their predictive value is limited. Prior to expending operational funds for large-scale soil amendment projects, further evaluation of the effectiveness of lead containment using phosphate amendment in a more realistic system is needed. This study evaluated the performance of two phosphate amendments in a more open dynamic system that simulated field conditions at SAFRs. The results of previous laboratory studies were extended by measuring and comparing losses of both soluble and insoluble lead in leachate and runoff from a treated and untreated SAFR soil using specially designed berm lysimeters. A rainfall simulation technique with the capability of increasing rainfall intensity and varying rainfall duration was developed to evaluate lead migration pathways at SAFRs. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Larson, S AU - Tardy, B AU - Beverly, M AU - Hearn, A AU - Thompson, M AU - Williams, G Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - Sep 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Weapons KW - Phosphates KW - Laboratory testing KW - Rainfall KW - soil amendment KW - Simulation KW - Containment KW - Water quality KW - Leachates KW - Lead KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19439053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Pollution+Abstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Larson%2C+S%3BTardy%2C+B%3BBeverly%2C+M%3BHearn%2C+A%3BThompson%2C+M%3BWilliams%2C+G&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Topical+Application+of+Phosphate+Amendments+to+Lead-Contaminated+Small+Arms+Firing+Range+Soils&rft.title=Topical+Application+of+Phosphate+Amendments+to+Lead-Contaminated+Small+Arms+Firing+Range+Soils&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-01 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geotechnical investigation of El Berrinche landslide, Tegucigalpa, Honduras AN - 1464886870; 2013-094623 JF - AEG News AU - Villanueva, Evelyn AU - Olsen, Rick AU - Smith, Lawson Y1 - 2004/09// PY - 2004 DA - September 2004 SP - 17 EP - 18 PB - Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists, Lawrence, KS VL - 47 IS - 3 SN - 0899-5788, 0899-5788 KW - engineering properties KW - El Berrinche landslide KW - mitigation KW - Tegucigalpa Honduras KW - sedimentary rocks KW - pore pressure KW - Honduras KW - siltstone KW - mass movements KW - storms KW - Rio Chiquito Formation KW - failures KW - rainfall KW - numerical analysis KW - surface water KW - Hurricane Mitch KW - cyclones KW - landslides KW - planning KW - runoff KW - risk assessment KW - Choluteca River KW - slope stability KW - clastic rocks KW - Central America KW - land use KW - hurricanes KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1464886870?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=AEG+News&rft.atitle=Geotechnical+investigation+of+El+Berrinche+landslide%2C+Tegucigalpa%2C+Honduras&rft.au=Villanueva%2C+Evelyn%3BOlsen%2C+Rick%3BSmith%2C+Lawson&rft.aulast=Villanueva&rft.aufirst=Evelyn&rft.date=2004-09-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=17&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AEG+News&rft.issn=08995788&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 1 N1 - PubXState - KS N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2013-12-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Central America; Choluteca River; clastic rocks; cyclones; El Berrinche landslide; engineering properties; failures; Honduras; Hurricane Mitch; hurricanes; land use; landslides; mass movements; mitigation; numerical analysis; planning; pore pressure; rainfall; Rio Chiquito Formation; risk assessment; runoff; sedimentary rocks; siltstone; slope stability; storms; surface water; Tegucigalpa Honduras ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 36435757; 11142 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Missouri River within the US 40/61 corridor to connect St. Charles and St. Louis counties, Missouri is proposed to supplement two other bridges providing crossings of the river in the area. The study corridor extends 2.1 miles from the Missouri Research Park overpass to Chesterfield Airport Road. The project would provide a new four-lane bridge upstream of the eastbound bridge and allow for continued use of both existing bridge. Improvements to the Chesterfield Airport Road interchange in St. Louis County and connections to the proposed one-way collector-distributor road system along US 40/61 in Chesterfield Valley would also be implemented. Six alternatives, including five new bridge alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in detail in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A2-prime) would provide for construction of a new four-lane bridge upstream of the existing eastbound bridge to accommodate eastbound traffic. The existing eastbound bridge would be converted to provide for three lanes of westbound traffic. One lane of westbound traffic would continue to be accommodated on the existing westbound bridge. The new bridge would meet all navigational requirements of the US Coast Guard, including matching the existing bridge pier locations and maintaining adequate horizontal and vertical clearances. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $168.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would address problems related to the aging westbound bridge and provide system continuity between roadway improvements in both of the affected counties. The facility would support projected traffic demands and economic development trends in the area and improve safety along the US 40/61 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development on 19.3 acres would result in the encroachment on 7.2 acres of floodplain land, disturbance of two previously recorded archaeological sites, displacement of 1.5 acres of primarily wooded land within the Weldon Spring Conservation Area. One hazardous waste site would be encountered during construction. 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 03-0096D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040417, 181 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-03-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Preserves KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 36378728; 11142-040417_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge across the Missouri River within the US 40/61 corridor to connect St. Charles and St. Louis counties, Missouri is proposed to supplement two other bridges providing crossings of the river in the area. The study corridor extends 2.1 miles from the Missouri Research Park overpass to Chesterfield Airport Road. The project would provide a new four-lane bridge upstream of the eastbound bridge and allow for continued use of both existing bridge. Improvements to the Chesterfield Airport Road interchange in St. Louis County and connections to the proposed one-way collector-distributor road system along US 40/61 in Chesterfield Valley would also be implemented. Six alternatives, including five new bridge alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in detail in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A2-prime) would provide for construction of a new four-lane bridge upstream of the existing eastbound bridge to accommodate eastbound traffic. The existing eastbound bridge would be converted to provide for three lanes of westbound traffic. One lane of westbound traffic would continue to be accommodated on the existing westbound bridge. The new bridge would meet all navigational requirements of the US Coast Guard, including matching the existing bridge pier locations and maintaining adequate horizontal and vertical clearances. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $168.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would address problems related to the aging westbound bridge and provide system continuity between roadway improvements in both of the affected counties. The facility would support projected traffic demands and economic development trends in the area and improve safety along the US 40/61 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development on 19.3 acres would result in the encroachment on 7.2 acres of floodplain land, disturbance of two previously recorded archaeological sites, displacement of 1.5 acres of primarily wooded land within the Weldon Spring Conservation Area. One hazardous waste site would be encountered during construction. 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 03-0096D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040417, 181 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-03-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Preserves KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+40%2F61+BRIDGE+LOCATION+STUDY+OVER+THE+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+ST.+CHARLES+AND+ST.+LOUIS+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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA [Part 1 of 8] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN - 36378719; 11143-040418_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The program is intended to implement wastewater and storm water improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and untreated wastewater and storm water into near shore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles of near shore and marine waters extending from Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary is part of a complex ecosystem that includes the Everglades, Florida Bay, and adjacent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, facility siting, protected species, effluent disposal, tourism, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding or the program. The other action alternative (Alternative 3) would involve seeking funding outside the federal government. Under Alternative 2, up to $100 million in federal funds would be provided to implement a coordinated program for wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements in the Keys. Alternative 2 would also provide for upgrading or replacing outdated onsite treatment systems and implementing central community wastewater collection and treatment systems in the more densely developed and highest ranked water quality hot spot" areas. Project prioritization and implementation would be based on treatment effectiveness and projects designated as "ready to roceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and storm water projects now under consideration are estimated at $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the near shore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting near shore ecosystems in the sanctuary. The program would reduce the number of health advisories issued by government authorities due to high bacteria levels associated with inadequate water treatment. Alternative 2 would address regional water quality issues, reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality throughout the sanctuary, and facilitate compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential adverse impacts due to the implementation of Alternative 2 would include those related to environmental justice and protected species. Over 25 percent of the population of the Keys is classified as low income or elderly and living on a fixed income; it would be difficult for these residence to afford the capital costs and monthly service fees associated with the wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements. Facility siting could require the displacement of residents and could encroach on sensitive habitat. Mitigation could be required for potential impacts to protected species resulting from habitat disturbance and /or loss. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0475D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040418, 421 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary KW - Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA&rft.title=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA [Part 7 of 8] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN - 36378303; 11143-040418_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The program is intended to implement wastewater and storm water improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and untreated wastewater and storm water into near shore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles of near shore and marine waters extending from Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary is part of a complex ecosystem that includes the Everglades, Florida Bay, and adjacent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, facility siting, protected species, effluent disposal, tourism, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding or the program. The other action alternative (Alternative 3) would involve seeking funding outside the federal government. Under Alternative 2, up to $100 million in federal funds would be provided to implement a coordinated program for wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements in the Keys. Alternative 2 would also provide for upgrading or replacing outdated onsite treatment systems and implementing central community wastewater collection and treatment systems in the more densely developed and highest ranked water quality hot spot" areas. Project prioritization and implementation would be based on treatment effectiveness and projects designated as "ready to roceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and storm water projects now under consideration are estimated at $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the near shore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting near shore ecosystems in the sanctuary. The program would reduce the number of health advisories issued by government authorities due to high bacteria levels associated with inadequate water treatment. Alternative 2 would address regional water quality issues, reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality throughout the sanctuary, and facilitate compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential adverse impacts due to the implementation of Alternative 2 would include those related to environmental justice and protected species. Over 25 percent of the population of the Keys is classified as low income or elderly and living on a fixed income; it would be difficult for these residence to afford the capital costs and monthly service fees associated with the wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements. Facility siting could require the displacement of residents and could encroach on sensitive habitat. Mitigation could be required for potential impacts to protected species resulting from habitat disturbance and /or loss. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0475D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040418, 421 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary KW - Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA&rft.title=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA [Part 8 of 8] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN - 36372888; 11143-040418_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The program is intended to implement wastewater and storm water improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and untreated wastewater and storm water into near shore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles of near shore and marine waters extending from Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary is part of a complex ecosystem that includes the Everglades, Florida Bay, and adjacent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, facility siting, protected species, effluent disposal, tourism, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding or the program. The other action alternative (Alternative 3) would involve seeking funding outside the federal government. Under Alternative 2, up to $100 million in federal funds would be provided to implement a coordinated program for wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements in the Keys. Alternative 2 would also provide for upgrading or replacing outdated onsite treatment systems and implementing central community wastewater collection and treatment systems in the more densely developed and highest ranked water quality hot spot" areas. Project prioritization and implementation would be based on treatment effectiveness and projects designated as "ready to roceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and storm water projects now under consideration are estimated at $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the near shore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting near shore ecosystems in the sanctuary. The program would reduce the number of health advisories issued by government authorities due to high bacteria levels associated with inadequate water treatment. Alternative 2 would address regional water quality issues, reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality throughout the sanctuary, and facilitate compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential adverse impacts due to the implementation of Alternative 2 would include those related to environmental justice and protected species. Over 25 percent of the population of the Keys is classified as low income or elderly and living on a fixed income; it would be difficult for these residence to afford the capital costs and monthly service fees associated with the wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements. Facility siting could require the displacement of residents and could encroach on sensitive habitat. Mitigation could be required for potential impacts to protected species resulting from habitat disturbance and /or loss. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0475D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040418, 421 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary KW - Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA&rft.title=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA [Part 3 of 8] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN - 36369530; 11143-040418_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The program is intended to implement wastewater and storm water improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and untreated wastewater and storm water into near shore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles of near shore and marine waters extending from Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary is part of a complex ecosystem that includes the Everglades, Florida Bay, and adjacent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, facility siting, protected species, effluent disposal, tourism, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding or the program. The other action alternative (Alternative 3) would involve seeking funding outside the federal government. Under Alternative 2, up to $100 million in federal funds would be provided to implement a coordinated program for wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements in the Keys. Alternative 2 would also provide for upgrading or replacing outdated onsite treatment systems and implementing central community wastewater collection and treatment systems in the more densely developed and highest ranked water quality hot spot" areas. Project prioritization and implementation would be based on treatment effectiveness and projects designated as "ready to roceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and storm water projects now under consideration are estimated at $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the near shore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting near shore ecosystems in the sanctuary. The program would reduce the number of health advisories issued by government authorities due to high bacteria levels associated with inadequate water treatment. Alternative 2 would address regional water quality issues, reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality throughout the sanctuary, and facilitate compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential adverse impacts due to the implementation of Alternative 2 would include those related to environmental justice and protected species. Over 25 percent of the population of the Keys is classified as low income or elderly and living on a fixed income; it would be difficult for these residence to afford the capital costs and monthly service fees associated with the wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements. Facility siting could require the displacement of residents and could encroach on sensitive habitat. Mitigation could be required for potential impacts to protected species resulting from habitat disturbance and /or loss. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0475D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040418, 421 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary KW - Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA&rft.title=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION STUDY FOR MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - NAVIGATION STUDY FOR MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36369458; 11145-040420_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of navigational features of the Miami Harbor in Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. Currently, the harbor channels lack sufficient depth and/or width, resulting in the grounding of containerships at the entrance channel, difficulty in turning and handling of larger vessels in the inner-harbor due to difficult currents, surge effects on docked ships, and transportation inefficiencies due to existing and future containerships not being able to fully load as a result of current channel depths. Study results concluded that a combination of measures to deepen and widen the existing federal system of channels from the beginning of the entrance channel to the Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin present the best solution from the point of view of national economic development. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred plan would involve widening the seaward portion of Cut-1 from 500 to 800 feet and deepening Cut-1 and Cut-2 from 44 to 51 feet; addition of a turn widener at the southern intersection of Cut-3 with Fisherman's Channel and deepening Cut-3 to 49 feet; increasing the Fisher Island Turning Basin from 1,200 to 1,500 feet, deepening the basin from 42 to 49 feet and truncating the north section of the basin to minimize seagrass impacts; realignment of the western end of the main channel by 250 to the south; widening the southern edge of Fisherman's Channel by 100 feet; reducing the Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin to a 1,500-foot diameter from the currently authorized 1,600-foot diameter and deepening the channel from 42 to 49 feet. Mitigation measures would include restoration of seagrass beds and creation of artificial reefs. Total first cost of the plan is estimated at $157.3 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.51. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would allow deep-draft containerships to be accommodated safely and efficiently at the harbor, increasing the economic viability of harbor facilities and generally improving the regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have an impact on several seagrass species in two areas; these areas are located in the Fisher Island Turning Basin and along the south side of Fisherman's Channel. The total area to be affected would be approximately 6.3 acres. In addition, there would be impacts to 49.4 acres of hardbottom/reef communities within the confines of the entrance channel. Dredging would result in temporary turbidity in the water column. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0363D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040420, Volume I--1,107 pages and maps, Volume II--533 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Marine Surveys KW - Reefs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+STUDY+FOR+MIAMI+HARBOR%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+STUDY+FOR+MIAMI+HARBOR%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION STUDY FOR MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - NAVIGATION STUDY FOR MIAMI HARBOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36366505; 11145-040420_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of navigational features of the Miami Harbor in Miami-Dade County, Florida is proposed. Currently, the harbor channels lack sufficient depth and/or width, resulting in the grounding of containerships at the entrance channel, difficulty in turning and handling of larger vessels in the inner-harbor due to difficult currents, surge effects on docked ships, and transportation inefficiencies due to existing and future containerships not being able to fully load as a result of current channel depths. Study results concluded that a combination of measures to deepen and widen the existing federal system of channels from the beginning of the entrance channel to the Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin present the best solution from the point of view of national economic development. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preferred plan would involve widening the seaward portion of Cut-1 from 500 to 800 feet and deepening Cut-1 and Cut-2 from 44 to 51 feet; addition of a turn widener at the southern intersection of Cut-3 with Fisherman's Channel and deepening Cut-3 to 49 feet; increasing the Fisher Island Turning Basin from 1,200 to 1,500 feet, deepening the basin from 42 to 49 feet and truncating the north section of the basin to minimize seagrass impacts; realignment of the western end of the main channel by 250 to the south; widening the southern edge of Fisherman's Channel by 100 feet; reducing the Lummus Island (Middle) Turning Basin to a 1,500-foot diameter from the currently authorized 1,600-foot diameter and deepening the channel from 42 to 49 feet. Mitigation measures would include restoration of seagrass beds and creation of artificial reefs. Total first cost of the plan is estimated at $157.3 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.51. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would allow deep-draft containerships to be accommodated safely and efficiently at the harbor, increasing the economic viability of harbor facilities and generally improving the regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would have an impact on several seagrass species in two areas; these areas are located in the Fisher Island Turning Basin and along the south side of Fisherman's Channel. The total area to be affected would be approximately 6.3 acres. In addition, there would be impacts to 49.4 acres of hardbottom/reef communities within the confines of the entrance channel. Dredging would result in temporary turbidity in the water column. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0363D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040420, Volume I--1,107 pages and maps, Volume II--533 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Marine Surveys KW - Reefs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+STUDY+FOR+MIAMI+HARBOR%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+STUDY+FOR+MIAMI+HARBOR%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA [Part 5 of 8] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN - 36363856; 11143-040418_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The program is intended to implement wastewater and storm water improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and untreated wastewater and storm water into near shore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles of near shore and marine waters extending from Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary is part of a complex ecosystem that includes the Everglades, Florida Bay, and adjacent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, facility siting, protected species, effluent disposal, tourism, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding or the program. The other action alternative (Alternative 3) would involve seeking funding outside the federal government. Under Alternative 2, up to $100 million in federal funds would be provided to implement a coordinated program for wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements in the Keys. Alternative 2 would also provide for upgrading or replacing outdated onsite treatment systems and implementing central community wastewater collection and treatment systems in the more densely developed and highest ranked water quality hot spot" areas. Project prioritization and implementation would be based on treatment effectiveness and projects designated as "ready to roceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and storm water projects now under consideration are estimated at $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the near shore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting near shore ecosystems in the sanctuary. The program would reduce the number of health advisories issued by government authorities due to high bacteria levels associated with inadequate water treatment. Alternative 2 would address regional water quality issues, reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality throughout the sanctuary, and facilitate compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential adverse impacts due to the implementation of Alternative 2 would include those related to environmental justice and protected species. Over 25 percent of the population of the Keys is classified as low income or elderly and living on a fixed income; it would be difficult for these residence to afford the capital costs and monthly service fees associated with the wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements. Facility siting could require the displacement of residents and could encroach on sensitive habitat. Mitigation could be required for potential impacts to protected species resulting from habitat disturbance and /or loss. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0475D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040418, 421 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary KW - Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA&rft.title=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA [Part 2 of 8] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN - 36363439; 11143-040418_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The program is intended to implement wastewater and storm water improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and untreated wastewater and storm water into near shore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles of near shore and marine waters extending from Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary is part of a complex ecosystem that includes the Everglades, Florida Bay, and adjacent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, facility siting, protected species, effluent disposal, tourism, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding or the program. The other action alternative (Alternative 3) would involve seeking funding outside the federal government. Under Alternative 2, up to $100 million in federal funds would be provided to implement a coordinated program for wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements in the Keys. Alternative 2 would also provide for upgrading or replacing outdated onsite treatment systems and implementing central community wastewater collection and treatment systems in the more densely developed and highest ranked water quality hot spot" areas. Project prioritization and implementation would be based on treatment effectiveness and projects designated as "ready to roceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and storm water projects now under consideration are estimated at $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the near shore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting near shore ecosystems in the sanctuary. The program would reduce the number of health advisories issued by government authorities due to high bacteria levels associated with inadequate water treatment. Alternative 2 would address regional water quality issues, reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality throughout the sanctuary, and facilitate compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential adverse impacts due to the implementation of Alternative 2 would include those related to environmental justice and protected species. Over 25 percent of the population of the Keys is classified as low income or elderly and living on a fixed income; it would be difficult for these residence to afford the capital costs and monthly service fees associated with the wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements. Facility siting could require the displacement of residents and could encroach on sensitive habitat. Mitigation could be required for potential impacts to protected species resulting from habitat disturbance and /or loss. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0475D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040418, 421 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary KW - Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA&rft.title=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA [Part 4 of 8] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN - 36362401; 11143-040418_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The program is intended to implement wastewater and storm water improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and untreated wastewater and storm water into near shore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles of near shore and marine waters extending from Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary is part of a complex ecosystem that includes the Everglades, Florida Bay, and adjacent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, facility siting, protected species, effluent disposal, tourism, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding or the program. The other action alternative (Alternative 3) would involve seeking funding outside the federal government. Under Alternative 2, up to $100 million in federal funds would be provided to implement a coordinated program for wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements in the Keys. Alternative 2 would also provide for upgrading or replacing outdated onsite treatment systems and implementing central community wastewater collection and treatment systems in the more densely developed and highest ranked water quality hot spot" areas. Project prioritization and implementation would be based on treatment effectiveness and projects designated as "ready to roceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and storm water projects now under consideration are estimated at $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the near shore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting near shore ecosystems in the sanctuary. The program would reduce the number of health advisories issued by government authorities due to high bacteria levels associated with inadequate water treatment. Alternative 2 would address regional water quality issues, reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality throughout the sanctuary, and facilitate compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential adverse impacts due to the implementation of Alternative 2 would include those related to environmental justice and protected species. Over 25 percent of the population of the Keys is classified as low income or elderly and living on a fixed income; it would be difficult for these residence to afford the capital costs and monthly service fees associated with the wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements. Facility siting could require the displacement of residents and could encroach on sensitive habitat. Mitigation could be required for potential impacts to protected species resulting from habitat disturbance and /or loss. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0475D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040418, 421 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary KW - Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA&rft.title=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA [Part 6 of 8] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AN - 36356509; 11143-040418_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is proposed in this programmatic EIS. The program is intended to implement wastewater and storm water improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and untreated wastewater and storm water into near shore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,800 square nautical miles of near shore and marine waters extending from Miami to the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary is part of a complex ecosystem that includes the Everglades, Florida Bay, and adjacent areas. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to water quality, facility siting, protected species, effluent disposal, tourism, and environmental justice. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding or the program. The other action alternative (Alternative 3) would involve seeking funding outside the federal government. Under Alternative 2, up to $100 million in federal funds would be provided to implement a coordinated program for wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements in the Keys. Alternative 2 would also provide for upgrading or replacing outdated onsite treatment systems and implementing central community wastewater collection and treatment systems in the more densely developed and highest ranked water quality hot spot" areas. Project prioritization and implementation would be based on treatment effectiveness and projects designated as "ready to roceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and storm water projects now under consideration are estimated at $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the near shore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting near shore ecosystems in the sanctuary. The program would reduce the number of health advisories issued by government authorities due to high bacteria levels associated with inadequate water treatment. Alternative 2 would address regional water quality issues, reduce nutrient loadings and improve water quality throughout the sanctuary, and facilitate compliance with federal and state regulatory water quality treatment standards in a timely manner. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential adverse impacts due to the implementation of Alternative 2 would include those related to environmental justice and protected species. Over 25 percent of the population of the Keys is classified as low income or elderly and living on a fixed income; it would be difficult for these residence to afford the capital costs and monthly service fees associated with the wastewater treatment and storm water management improvements. Facility siting could require the displacement of residents and could encroach on sensitive habitat. Mitigation could be required for potential impacts to protected species resulting from habitat disturbance and /or loss. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0475D, Volume 28, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040418, 421 pages and maps, August 31, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Preserves KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Standards Violations KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary KW - Department of Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act, Funding KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA&rft.title=FLORIDA+KEYS+WATER+QUALITY+IMPROVEMENTS+PROGRAM%2C+MONROE+COUNTY%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: August 31, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AKUTAN, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AKUTAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874136; 11140-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of harbor facilities at Akutan, Alaska is proposed. Akutan is located in the Aleutian Island chain 766 air miles southwest of Anchorage and 35 miles east of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. Boats and amphibious aircraft are currently the only means of transportation into Akutan. Currently, harbor facilities at Akutan provide no permanent moorage for the fishing fleet operating out of the harbor. Vessels must travel to other locations to find moorage when fishing seasons are closed. Vessels seek protection in Akutan from storms during the fishing season. The current practice is to anchor with engines running in case the anchors drag or to cruise around the bay. This situation increases the risks of vessels running aground and of oil spills from damaged vessels. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the nonstructural action alternative, two sites for harbor improvements are evaluated. One of the sites, North Point, proved to be economically unjustifiable. Three concepts are considered for provision of harbor facilities at the head of the bay. The recommended plan would involve the creation of a 12-acre basin at the had of the bay due to the fact that is would result in the least environmental impact to adjacent wetlands and anadromous fish stream habitat on either side of the site. The recommended plan would provide protected moorage for 58 vessels ranging in length from less than 24 feet to 180 feet. The estimated construction cost of the recommended plan, including channel excavation and breakwater construction, is $11.3 million at October 2003 price levels. Total project costs are estimated at $19.0 million. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.8. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide secure, protected harbor facilities for the fishing fleet and other ships serving Akutan, ensuring the economic viability of the local community and regional fishing interests and the safety of vessel crews as well as preventing damaging spills of fuel into the bay. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 12-acre basin alternative would require dredging of 850,000 cubic yards of sandy/gravely material out of a freshwater wetland complex that is currently isolated from the harbor's marine environment. Dredging would result in damage to the wetland and release sediment in to the surrounding waters temporarily. In addition to the damage to freshwater wetlands, the project would affect fish-bearing streams and ponds and marine habitat that supports juvenile fish and over-wintering Steller's eiders. Limited water circulation at the head of the harbor could result in degradation of water quality. Chromic releases of petroleum products due to harbor operations and vessel operations could also degrade water quality and marine sediments that provide habitat for benthic organisms. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0112D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040415, Final EIS--410 pages and maps, Appendices--421 pages, August 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Defense Programs KW - Bays KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+AKUTAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+AKUTAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elemdorf Air Force Base, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AKUTAN, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AKUTAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874133; 11140-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of harbor facilities at Akutan, Alaska is proposed. Akutan is located in the Aleutian Island chain 766 air miles southwest of Anchorage and 35 miles east of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. Boats and amphibious aircraft are currently the only means of transportation into Akutan. Currently, harbor facilities at Akutan provide no permanent moorage for the fishing fleet operating out of the harbor. Vessels must travel to other locations to find moorage when fishing seasons are closed. Vessels seek protection in Akutan from storms during the fishing season. The current practice is to anchor with engines running in case the anchors drag or to cruise around the bay. This situation increases the risks of vessels running aground and of oil spills from damaged vessels. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the nonstructural action alternative, two sites for harbor improvements are evaluated. One of the sites, North Point, proved to be economically unjustifiable. Three concepts are considered for provision of harbor facilities at the head of the bay. The recommended plan would involve the creation of a 12-acre basin at the had of the bay due to the fact that is would result in the least environmental impact to adjacent wetlands and anadromous fish stream habitat on either side of the site. The recommended plan would provide protected moorage for 58 vessels ranging in length from less than 24 feet to 180 feet. The estimated construction cost of the recommended plan, including channel excavation and breakwater construction, is $11.3 million at October 2003 price levels. Total project costs are estimated at $19.0 million. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.8. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide secure, protected harbor facilities for the fishing fleet and other ships serving Akutan, ensuring the economic viability of the local community and regional fishing interests and the safety of vessel crews as well as preventing damaging spills of fuel into the bay. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 12-acre basin alternative would require dredging of 850,000 cubic yards of sandy/gravely material out of a freshwater wetland complex that is currently isolated from the harbor's marine environment. Dredging would result in damage to the wetland and release sediment in to the surrounding waters temporarily. In addition to the damage to freshwater wetlands, the project would affect fish-bearing streams and ponds and marine habitat that supports juvenile fish and over-wintering Steller's eiders. Limited water circulation at the head of the harbor could result in degradation of water quality. Chromic releases of petroleum products due to harbor operations and vessel operations could also degrade water quality and marine sediments that provide habitat for benthic organisms. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0112D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040415, Final EIS--410 pages and maps, Appendices--421 pages, August 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Bays KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+AKUTAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+AKUTAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elemdorf Air Force Base, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AKUTAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, AKUTAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874130; 11140-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of harbor facilities at Akutan, Alaska is proposed. Akutan is located in the Aleutian Island chain 766 air miles southwest of Anchorage and 35 miles east of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. Boats and amphibious aircraft are currently the only means of transportation into Akutan. Currently, harbor facilities at Akutan provide no permanent moorage for the fishing fleet operating out of the harbor. Vessels must travel to other locations to find moorage when fishing seasons are closed. Vessels seek protection in Akutan from storms during the fishing season. The current practice is to anchor with engines running in case the anchors drag or to cruise around the bay. This situation increases the risks of vessels running aground and of oil spills from damaged vessels. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the nonstructural action alternative, two sites for harbor improvements are evaluated. One of the sites, North Point, proved to be economically unjustifiable. Three concepts are considered for provision of harbor facilities at the head of the bay. The recommended plan would involve the creation of a 12-acre basin at the had of the bay due to the fact that is would result in the least environmental impact to adjacent wetlands and anadromous fish stream habitat on either side of the site. The recommended plan would provide protected moorage for 58 vessels ranging in length from less than 24 feet to 180 feet. The estimated construction cost of the recommended plan, including channel excavation and breakwater construction, is $11.3 million at October 2003 price levels. Total project costs are estimated at $19.0 million. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.8. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide secure, protected harbor facilities for the fishing fleet and other ships serving Akutan, ensuring the economic viability of the local community and regional fishing interests and the safety of vessel crews as well as preventing damaging spills of fuel into the bay. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The 12-acre basin alternative would require dredging of 850,000 cubic yards of sandy/gravely material out of a freshwater wetland complex that is currently isolated from the harbor's marine environment. Dredging would result in damage to the wetland and release sediment in to the surrounding waters temporarily. In addition to the damage to freshwater wetlands, the project would affect fish-bearing streams and ponds and marine habitat that supports juvenile fish and over-wintering Steller's eiders. Limited water circulation at the head of the harbor could result in degradation of water quality. Chromic releases of petroleum products due to harbor operations and vessel operations could also degrade water quality and marine sediments that provide habitat for benthic organisms. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0112D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040415, Final EIS--410 pages and maps, Appendices--421 pages, August 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Bays KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+AKUTAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+AKUTAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elemdorf Air Force Base, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 248 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874831; 11136-1_0248 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 248 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 247 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874830; 11136-1_0247 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 247 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 246 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874829; 11136-1_0246 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 246 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874829?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 243 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874826; 11136-1_0243 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 243 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 242 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874825; 11136-1_0242 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 242 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 241 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874824; 11136-1_0241 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 241 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874824?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 240 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874823; 11136-1_0240 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 240 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 239 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874822; 11136-1_0239 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 239 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 238 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874821; 11136-1_0238 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 238 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 237 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874820; 11136-1_0237 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 237 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874820?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 176 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874818; 11136-1_0176 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 176 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 167 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874816; 11136-1_0167 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 167 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874816?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 236 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874815; 11136-1_0236 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 236 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 166 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874814; 11136-1_0166 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 166 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 235 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874813; 11136-1_0235 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 235 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 165 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874812; 11136-1_0165 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 165 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 234 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874811; 11136-1_0234 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 234 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 164 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874810; 11136-1_0164 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 164 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874810?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 233 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874809; 11136-1_0233 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 233 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 163 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874808; 11136-1_0163 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 163 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 232 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874807; 11136-1_0232 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 232 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 231 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874805; 11136-1_0231 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 231 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 230 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874803; 11136-1_0230 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 230 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874803?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 160 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874802; 11136-1_0160 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 160 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 229 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874801; 11136-1_0229 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 229 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 228 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874799; 11136-1_0228 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 228 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 158 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874798; 11136-1_0158 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 158 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 227 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874797; 11136-1_0227 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 227 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 157 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874795; 11136-1_0157 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 157 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 225 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874792; 11136-1_0225 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 225 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 118 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874791; 11136-1_0118 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 118 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 153 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874786; 11136-1_0153 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 153 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 114 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874785; 11136-1_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 114 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 77 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874784; 11136-1_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 77 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 152 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874783; 11136-1_0152 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 152 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 76 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874782; 11136-1_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 76 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874782?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 113 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874781; 11136-1_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 113 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 75 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874779; 11136-1_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 75 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 150 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874778; 11136-1_0150 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 150 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874778?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 111 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874777; 11136-1_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 111 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 74 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874775; 11136-1_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 74 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 149 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874774; 11136-1_0149 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 149 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 124 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874771; 11136-1_0124 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 124 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 148 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874770; 11136-1_0148 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 148 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 72 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874767; 11136-1_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 72 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 121 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874766; 11136-1_0121 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 121 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 147 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874764; 11136-1_0147 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 147 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 120 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874762; 11136-1_0120 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 120 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874762?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 71 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874758; 11136-1_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 71 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 145 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874754; 11136-1_0145 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 145 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 70 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874752; 11136-1_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 70 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874752?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 62 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874748; 11136-1_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 62 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874748?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 69 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874746; 11136-1_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 69 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 68 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874741; 11136-1_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 68 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874741?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 60 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874737; 11136-1_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 60 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 116 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874736; 11136-1_0116 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 116 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 67 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874735; 11136-1_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 67 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 59 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874734; 11136-1_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 59 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 66 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874733; 11136-1_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 66 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 198 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874732; 11136-1_0198 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 198 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 115 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874731; 11136-1_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 115 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 65 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874728; 11136-1_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 65 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 195 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874727; 11136-1_0195 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 195 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 215 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874726; 11136-1_0215 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 215 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 57 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874725; 11136-1_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 57 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874725?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 112 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874724; 11136-1_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 112 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 64 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874723; 11136-1_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 64 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 126 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874722; 11136-1_0126 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 126 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 210 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874721; 11136-1_0210 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 210 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 56 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874720; 11136-1_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 56 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 109 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874719; 11136-1_0109 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 109 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 63 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874718; 11136-1_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 63 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 203 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874717; 11136-1_0203 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 203 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 107 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874716; 11136-1_0107 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 107 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 55 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874715; 11136-1_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 55 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 108 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874714; 11136-1_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 108 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 24 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874713; 11136-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 24 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 202 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874712; 11136-1_0202 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 202 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 106 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874711; 11136-1_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 106 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 201 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874707; 11136-1_0201 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 201 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/PAIS+Index&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Studia+Diplomatica&rft.atitle=China+and+the+South+China+Sea%3A+A+New+Security+Dilemma%3F&rft.au=De+Swielande%2C+Tanguy+Struye&rft.aulast=De+Swielande&rft.aufirst=Tanguy&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=7&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Studia+Diplomatica&rft.issn=07702965&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874705; 11136-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 103 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874704; 11136-1_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 103 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874702; 11136-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2016-07-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=100&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=East+Asian+Policy&rft.issn=17939305&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874698; 11136-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874694; 11136-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Su&rft.date=2011-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=China%27s+Positions+and+Interests+in+the+South+China+Sea%3A+A+Rational+Choices+in+its+Cooperative+Policies&rft.title=China%27s+Positions+and+Interests+in+the+South+China+Sea%3A+A+Rational+Choices+in+its+Cooperative+Policies&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 132 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874692; 11136-1_0132 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 132 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874691; 11136-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 128 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874687; 11136-1_0128 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 128 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 197 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874686; 11136-1_0197 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 197 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874686?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 39 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874682; 11136-1_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 39 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 196 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874680; 11136-1_0196 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 196 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 38 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874678; 11136-1_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 38 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 123 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874676; 11136-1_0123 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 123 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 105 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874674; 11136-1_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 105 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874674?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 32 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874672; 11136-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 32 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 122 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874670; 11136-1_0122 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 122 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874670?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 104 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874667; 11136-1_0104 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 104 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 31 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874664; 11136-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 31 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 30 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874653; 11136-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 30 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 28 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874645; 11136-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 28 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874640; 11136-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 27 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874640?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874636; 11136-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874633; 11136-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 219 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874587; 11136-1_0219 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 219 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 218 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874583; 11136-1_0218 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 218 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 211 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874576; 11136-1_0211 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 211 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 255 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874568; 11136-1_0255 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 255 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 254 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874559; 11136-1_0254 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 254 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874559?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 139 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874556; 11136-1_0139 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 139 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 182 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874553; 11136-1_0182 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 182 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 250 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874546; 11136-1_0250 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 250 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 133 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874545; 11136-1_0133 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 133 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 91 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874543; 11136-1_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 91 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 194 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874537; 11136-1_0194 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 194 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 190 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874534; 11136-1_0190 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 190 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 87 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874530; 11136-1_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 87 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 193 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874527; 11136-1_0193 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 193 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 49 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874525; 11136-1_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 49 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 186 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874521; 11136-1_0186 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 186 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 86 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874519; 11136-1_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 86 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 183 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874516; 11136-1_0183 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 183 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 192 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874513; 11136-1_0192 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 192 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874508; 11136-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 25 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 171 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874506; 11136-1_0171 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 171 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 191 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874500; 11136-1_0191 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 191 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 95 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874498; 11136-1_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 95 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 188 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874497; 11136-1_0188 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 188 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874497?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 98 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874490; 11136-1_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 98 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 174 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874486; 11136-1_0174 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 174 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874486?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 102 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874482; 11136-1_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 102 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 41 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874479; 11136-1_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 41 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 94 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874478; 11136-1_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 94 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 93 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874474; 11136-1_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 93 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 173 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874467; 11136-1_0173 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 173 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 101 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874465; 11136-1_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 101 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 40 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874464; 11136-1_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 40 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 96 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874462; 11136-1_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 96 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Shmuel&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=31&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Revolutionary+Russia&rft.issn=09546545&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F09546540410001677713 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 80 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874455; 11136-1_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 80 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874455?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 36 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874448; 11136-1_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 36 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874438; 11136-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 22 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=Rendall&rft.aufirst=Matthew&rft.date=2000-07-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=52&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Security+Studies&rft.issn=09636412&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 84 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874435; 11136-1_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 84 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 35 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874433; 11136-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 35 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 99 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874426; 11136-1_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 99 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874417; 11136-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=901&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Middle+Eastern+Studies&rft.issn=00263206&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F00263206.2013.836499 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 221 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874413; 11136-1_0221 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 221 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 82 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874405; 11136-1_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 82 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874402; 11136-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 179 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874399; 11136-1_0179 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 179 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 220 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874397; 11136-1_0220 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 220 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 81 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874394; 11136-1_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 81 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874391; 11136-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 178 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874386; 11136-1_0178 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 178 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 189 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874385; 11136-1_0189 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 189 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 140 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874384; 11136-1_0140 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 140 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 23 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874381; 11136-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 89 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874371; 11136-1_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 89 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 127 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874369; 11136-1_0127 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 127 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 88 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874360; 11136-1_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 88 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874359; 11136-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 29 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 249 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874353; 11136-1_0249 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 249 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 170 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874331; 11136-1_0170 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 170 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 169 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874313; 11136-1_0169 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 169 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 79 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874296; 11136-1_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 79 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 181 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874293; 11136-1_0181 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 181 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 78 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874282; 11136-1_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 78 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 180 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874273; 11136-1_0180 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 180 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 90 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874258; 11136-1_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 90 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874257; 11136-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 26 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874228; 11136-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 26 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874228?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 217 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874199; 11136-1_0217 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 217 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874199?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 214 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874171; 11136-1_0214 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 214 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 213 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874159; 11136-1_0213 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 213 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 138 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874142; 11136-1_0138 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 138 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 222 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874135; 11136-1_0222 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 222 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 137 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874122; 11136-1_0137 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 137 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 206 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874117; 11136-1_0206 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 206 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874117?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 135 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874102; 11136-1_0135 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 135 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 205 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874101; 11136-1_0205 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 205 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 142 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874084; 11136-1_0142 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 142 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 46 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874082; 11136-1_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 46 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 223 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874071; 11136-1_0223 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 223 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 43 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874064; 11136-1_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 43 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 130 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874053; 11136-1_0130 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 130 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874048; 11136-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 52 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874037; 11136-1_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 52 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 144 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874034; 11136-1_0144 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 144 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 51 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874025; 11136-1_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 51 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 54 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874002; 11136-1_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 54 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905874002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873989; 11136-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 53 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873988; 11136-1_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 53 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873988?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873929; 11136-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 209 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873795; 11136-1_0209 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 209 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 208 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873755; 11136-1_0208 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 208 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 136 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873690; 11136-1_0136 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 136 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 37 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873669; 11136-1_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 37 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 204 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873390; 11136-1_0204 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 204 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 129 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873343; 11136-1_0129 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and powerlines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska are proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, Conoco-Phillips Alaska, Inc. (CAPI), this final EIS addresses four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative E). The applicant's proposal (Alternative A) would involve five production pads, Colville Development-3 (CD-3) through CD-7. Produced fluids would be transported by pipeline to processing facilities at Alpine Processing Facility 1. Gravel roads would connect CD-4 through CD-7 to existing Alpine facilities. CD-3 would be accessed by ice road or by air. Gravel used for construction of roads, pads, and airstrips would be obtained from the existing Arctic Slope Regional Corporation mine site and the Clover Potential Gravel Source. A bridge across the Nigliq Channel near CD-2 would accommodate road traffic and the pipelines. CD-3 would be the only new pad served by an airstrip. CD-6 would be within a three-mile setback from Fish Creek to address federal requirements prohibiting permanent oil facilities in close proximity to the creek; the alternative would provide for an exception to this provision to allow location of CD-6 and its associated road and pipeline within the setback. Additional exceptions or modifications of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve guidelines would be required to locate oil infrastructure within 500 feet of some water bodies and to allow roads connecting to a road system outside the NPR-A. Aboveground pipelines would be supported on vertical support members (VSMs) and would be at elevations of at least five feet above the tundra. Powerlines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one powerline that would be suspended from poles between CD-6 and CD-7. Roads would be open to use by other industrial interests and residents. Other action alternatives address closer conformance with federal stipulations regarding use of the reserve, alternative access routes, and development of the facilities without the construction of additional roads. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would modify key components of CAPI's proposal to minimize, mitigate or avoid certain potential environmental impacts identified during review of the proposal since the publication of the draft EIS. The modifications are largely confined to road and bridge construction and use, powerlines and pipelines, infrastructure in the Fish Creek area, and the lighting of high structures to reduce the risk of bird collisions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of the facilities would provide access to petroleum resources in the two areas, while protecting natural resources of this pristine wilderness ecosystem. Exploitation of the petroleum reserves would provide a better understand of the means by which to access the larger reserves in the area without significantly damaging the environment, helping to ensure the safe, continued provision of this valuable energy resource and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. The development of NPR-A would add significantly to the area economy, providing jobs and increasing expenditures in the area and increasing the government revenue base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The construction of roads, pads, airstrip facilities, and gravel mine sites would change landforms in the affected areas, potentially affecting the thermal stability of the tundra and area hydrology through thermokarsting and increased ponding. Archaeological and paleontological resources could also be disturbed or destroyed. Facility development under the applicant's proposal would result in the direct disturbance of 2,085 acres, affecting tundra, tundra vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, and increased human presence in the area would disturb wildlife movements and could affect breeding. Winter habitat and feeding and spawning areas for fish could be degraded. Subsistence activities of local residents and access to subsistence resources would be altered somewhat. Project facilities would significantly alter the visual character of the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0248D, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040411, Volume 1--989 pages, Volume 2--1,072 pages and maps, Volume 3--1,102, August 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 129 KW - Research and Development KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Energy Reserves KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Ice Environments KW - Gravel KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/905873343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALPINE+SATELLITE+DEVELOPMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -