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 244 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874827; 11136-1_0244 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 - 244 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/905874827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 162 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874806; 11136-1_0162 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 - 162 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/905874806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 161 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874804; 11136-1_0161 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 - 161 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/905874804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 159 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874800; 11136-1_0159 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 - 159 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/905874800?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 226 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874796; 11136-1_0226 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 - 226 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/905874796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 119 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874794; 11136-1_0119 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 - 119 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/905874794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 156 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874793; 11136-1_0156 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 - 156 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/905874793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 155 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874789; 11136-1_0155 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 - 155 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/905874789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 73 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874773; 11136-1_0073 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 - 73 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/905874773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 199 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874730; 11136-1_0199 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 - 199 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/905874730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 58 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874729; 11136-1_0058 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 - 58 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/905874729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 14 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874708; 11136-1_0014 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 - 14 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/905874708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 16 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874679; 11136-1_0016 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 - 16 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/905874679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 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 253 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874548; 11136-1_0253 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 - 253 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/905874548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 252 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874538; 11136-1_0252 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 - 252 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/905874538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 184 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874526; 11136-1_0184 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 - 184 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/905874526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 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 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 187 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874477; 11136-1_0187 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 - 187 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/905874477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 92 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874450; 11136-1_0092 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 - 92 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/905874450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 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 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 216 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874184; 11136-1_0216 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 - 216 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/905874184?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 224 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874086; 11136-1_0224 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 - 224 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/905874086?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 143 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874024; 11136-1_0143 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 - 143 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/905874024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 33 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905874006; 11136-1_0033 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 - 33 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/905874006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 42 of 255] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 905873957; 11136-1_0042 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 - 42 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/905873957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36433286; 11125 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36433286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 59 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36379001; 11125-040400_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 54 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378848; 11125-040400_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 70 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378473; 11125-040400_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 36 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378326; 11125-040400_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378166; 11125-040400_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 49 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378089; 11125-040400_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 53 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36378012; 11125-040400_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36377961; 11125-040400_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 62 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36377949; 11125-040400_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 46 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36375941; 11125-040400_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36375796; 11125-040400_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36375796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 35 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36374997; 11125-040400_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36374995; 11125-040400_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36374757; 11125-040400_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 34 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36374679; 11125-040400_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36374583; 11125-040400_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 27 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36374538; 11125-040400_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36373687; 11125-040400_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 51 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372591; 11125-040400_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 42 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372445; 11125-040400_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 40 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372307; 11125-040400_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 33 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372197; 11125-040400_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 32 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36372049; 11125-040400_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36372049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371972; 11125-040400_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371972?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371892; 11125-040400_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371855; 11125-040400_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371703; 11125-040400_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371693; 11125-040400_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371693?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371557; 11125-040400_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 55 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371258; 11125-040400_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 43 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36371024; 11125-040400_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36371024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 37 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370920; 11125-040400_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36370685; 11125-040400_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36370685?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 69 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36369346; 11125-040400_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 66 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36369240; 11125-040400_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 31 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36369125; 11125-040400_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36368955; 11125-040400_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36368817; 11125-040400_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 44 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36366358; 11125-040400_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366358?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 38 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36366217; 11125-040400_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36366217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36365934; 11125-040400_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36365756; 11125-040400_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365756?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36365618; 11125-040400_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36364838; 11125-040400_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 57 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363911; 11125-040400_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 50 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363620; 11125-040400_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 48 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363391; 11125-040400_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 52 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363197; 11125-040400_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 67 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363152; 11125-040400_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 45 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363004; 11125-040400_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 68 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36362796; 11125-040400_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 61 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36362697; 11125-040400_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36362617; 11125-040400_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 30 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36362608; 11125-040400_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 60 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36362470; 11125-040400_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36362389; 11125-040400_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362389?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 41 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36362030; 11125-040400_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362030?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36362015; 11125-040400_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 58 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36356588; 11125-040400_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 64 of 70] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36356204; 11125-040400_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 acres of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant=owned land. Two storm water detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, converting this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrub-land, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0017D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040400, Final EIS--471 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--501 pages and maps; Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Draft EIS Appendices--587 pages and maps, August 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356204?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRADO BASIN WATER CONSERVATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRADO DAM, RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36439949; 11116 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of water supply and water conservation opportunities of the Prado Dam and Reservoir in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed. The study area is defined as Prado Dam and Reservoir, the Santa Ana River downstream of the dam, and the downstream spreading grounds. The dam is located in Riverside County near the border with Orange and San Bernardino counties. Prado Dam has an elevation of 460 feet national geodetic vertical datum at the head of the Santa Ana Canyon at the eastern end of Chino Hills. The feasibility study analyzes the water demands of the area, water supplies, and the potential for water conservation to meet supply deficiencies for both the existing and future. Based on supply/demand analysis, available normal-year local supplies for the study area currently meet only 60 percent of demand; this percentage will decrease as demand increases. Therefore, additional low-cost water supplies will be needed to meet demand. Re-operation of the Prado Dam to increase the available flow during the flood and non-flood season would provide this additional local water supply. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives vary from a maximum water surface elevation (WSE) of 494 feet to a maximum WSE of 508 feet. Water conservation during the non-flood season (March 1 to September 30) vary from a maximum WSE of 404 feet to a maximum WSE of 508 feet. Releases from Prado that the downstream spreading grounds can accommodate would lower the WSE while storm inflows would increase it. The Seven Oaks Dam could also have an impact on the operation of Prado Dam. The impact of the Seven Oaks Dam on reducing the magnitude of floods downstream of Prado Dam is substantial. The flood control release schedule for the current Prado outlets does not maximize outflow. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would provide an elevation of 498 feet at the top of conservation pool storage during flood season of 498 feet. During non-flood season, the top of the conservation storage pool would be at elevation 505 feet. The water conservation yield for this alternative would be approximately 240,000 acre-feet in the year 2004 and 318,000 acre-feet in the year 2053. Annual biological mitigation costs are estimated at $58,000. The overall benefit-cost ratio for the preferred alternative is estimated at 4.4. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would significantly improve the effectiveness of downstream flood control facilities. Groundwater recharge downstream of the dam would result in increase yields, and downstream water quality and water quality within the Prado Dam basin would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in increased sediment erosion at the downstream River View Golf Course. Habitat, including nesting habitat, for Least Bell's Vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, both of which are federally protected species, would be affected, as would habitat of the federally protected Santa Ana sucker. Sensitive willow woodland and cottonwood/willow woodland habitat would also suffer reduction. Mosquito population in the area would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1936 (P.L. 74-738) JF - EPA number: 040391, 489 pages and maps, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Santa Ana River KW - California KW - Prado River KW - Flood Control Act of 1936, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRADO+BASIN+WATER+CONSERVATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+PRADO+DAM%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PRADO+BASIN+WATER+CONSERVATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+PRADO+DAM%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995). AN - 36374135; 11114-040389_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota, is proposed. The project would include the functional replacement of the existing drawbridge over the St. Croix River and the reconstruction of approach highways leading to the bridge in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The study area termini are the vicinity of County Road 15 in Minnesota and a point on STH 64 approximately 2.5 miles east of the state line in Wisconsin. The possibility of improving existing TH 36 from Houlton to New Richmond, 15 miles to the east, is currently under study. This represents a separate study based on transportation needs independent of the river crossing analysis. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of April 1995. In 1996, the National Park Service evaluated the project under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and found that the project, as proposed, would have a direct adverse effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values for which the Lower St. Croix River was included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a result, the necessary permits were withdrawn, and the project was not allowed to proceed. This draft supplement to the final EIS considers a new proposal and four No-Build Alternatives. Alternatives B-1, B, or D would provide a new four-lane bridge, with a bicycle/pedestrian trail on the north side of the bridge; the bridge would be located approximately 6,500 south of the Lift Bridge, 3,900 feet south of the bridge, or 1,940 feet south of the bridge, respectively. Alternative E would provide a new one-way bridge approximately 2,010 feet south of the Lift Bridge for two lanes of eastbound traffic, and use the Lift Bridge as a two-lane, one-way roadway for westbound traffic. The cost of alternatives B-1, C, D, and E are estimated to range from $230 million to $355 million, $230 million to $285 million, $245 million to $310 million, and $230 million to $275 million. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 6.0, 7.4, 7.3, and 3.1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to major transportation service, safety, and congestion improvements that would occur with the construction of any of the build alternatives, there would be several social, economic, and environmental benefits. A hindrance to resolution of a significant problem in planning the nature of the future transportation network serving 11 study area communities would be removed. Reduction in air pollutant emissions, energy use, and traffic-generated noise, as well as improved water quality would also result. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development, encompassing 285 to 305 acres, would affect three parks, the Lowe St. Croix National Riverway System, and the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property, as well as resulting in the displacement of 20 to 27 commercial properties, eight to 22 single-family residences, two multi-family residences, 66 to 129 acres of farmland, 6.4 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.18 to 13.29 acres of trees and undergrowth along the river shorelines and the associated wildlife habitat. Floodplain encroachment would result from bridge construction. Storm water runoff from the roadway could significantly degrade water quality in the river. The project could impact freshwater mussels, dotted blazing star, osprey, and bald eagle, all of which are federally protected species. Numerous sensitive receptor sites and a portion of the river would be subject to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal and/or standards. There would be a potential for cumulative impacts to archaeological and historic resources due to changes in surrounding land use, accessibility, settings, and views. Construction workers would encounter 33 to 35 potentially contaminated sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0121D, Volume 14, Number 2 and 95-0139F, Volume 19, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040389, 591 pages and maps, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-90-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - St. Croix River KW - Wisconsin KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374135?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.title=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&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: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRADO BASIN WATER CONSERVATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRADO DAM, RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PRADO BASIN WATER CONSERVATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, PRADO DAM, RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373438; 11116-040391_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of water supply and water conservation opportunities of the Prado Dam and Reservoir in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, California is proposed. The study area is defined as Prado Dam and Reservoir, the Santa Ana River downstream of the dam, and the downstream spreading grounds. The dam is located in Riverside County near the border with Orange and San Bernardino counties. Prado Dam has an elevation of 460 feet national geodetic vertical datum at the head of the Santa Ana Canyon at the eastern end of Chino Hills. The feasibility study analyzes the water demands of the area, water supplies, and the potential for water conservation to meet supply deficiencies for both the existing and future. Based on supply/demand analysis, available normal-year local supplies for the study area currently meet only 60 percent of demand; this percentage will decrease as demand increases. Therefore, additional low-cost water supplies will be needed to meet demand. Re-operation of the Prado Dam to increase the available flow during the flood and non-flood season would provide this additional local water supply. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The alternatives vary from a maximum water surface elevation (WSE) of 494 feet to a maximum WSE of 508 feet. Water conservation during the non-flood season (March 1 to September 30) vary from a maximum WSE of 404 feet to a maximum WSE of 508 feet. Releases from Prado that the downstream spreading grounds can accommodate would lower the WSE while storm inflows would increase it. The Seven Oaks Dam could also have an impact on the operation of Prado Dam. The impact of the Seven Oaks Dam on reducing the magnitude of floods downstream of Prado Dam is substantial. The flood control release schedule for the current Prado outlets does not maximize outflow. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would provide an elevation of 498 feet at the top of conservation pool storage during flood season of 498 feet. During non-flood season, the top of the conservation storage pool would be at elevation 505 feet. The water conservation yield for this alternative would be approximately 240,000 acre-feet in the year 2004 and 318,000 acre-feet in the year 2053. Annual biological mitigation costs are estimated at $58,000. The overall benefit-cost ratio for the preferred alternative is estimated at 4.4. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would significantly improve the effectiveness of downstream flood control facilities. Groundwater recharge downstream of the dam would result in increase yields, and downstream water quality and water quality within the Prado Dam basin would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would result in increased sediment erosion at the downstream River View Golf Course. Habitat, including nesting habitat, for Least Bell's Vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, both of which are federally protected species, would be affected, as would habitat of the federally protected Santa Ana sucker. Sensitive willow woodland and cottonwood/willow woodland habitat would also suffer reduction. Mosquito population in the area would increase somewhat. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1936 (P.L. 74-738) JF - EPA number: 040391, 489 pages and maps, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Conservation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Santa Ana River KW - California KW - Prado River KW - Flood Control Act of 1936, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRADO+BASIN+WATER+CONSERVATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+PRADO+DAM%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PRADO+BASIN+WATER+CONSERVATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+PRADO+DAM%2C+RIVERSIDE+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE PASS LNG AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CAMERON PARISH, LOUISIANA (DOCKET NOS CP04-47-000, CP04-38-000, CP04-39-000, AND CP04-40-000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SABINE PASS LNG AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CAMERON PARISH, LOUISIANA (DOCKET NOS CP04-47-000, CP04-38-000, CP04-39-000, AND CP04-40-000). AN - 36368001; 11113-040388_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities in Cameron Parish, Louisiana are proposed by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. and Chiniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company. The project would involve the construction of a new marine terminal basin connected to the Sabine Pass Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area and two protected berths to unload up to 300 LNG ships per year; installation of two 30-inch-diameter stainless steel insulated LNG pipelines to transfer the LNG from the berth facilities to the LNG storage tanks; three all-metal, double-walled, single containment, top-entry LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal working volume of approximately 160,000 cubic meters (1.0 million barrels) and each with secondary containment dikes capable of containing 110 percent of the gross tank volume; nine intake pumps, each capable of discharging 4,300 gallons per minute (gpm), and 16 sendout pumps, each capable of discharging 1,686 gpm; 16 high-pressure submerged combustion vaporizers with a capacity of approximately 180 million cubic feet per day each, as well as other associated vaporization equipment; three boil-off gas compressors, instrumentation and safety systems, including hazard detection and fire response systems; packaged natural gas turbine/generator sets to generate power for the LNG terminal; ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities, including a metering facility; and approximately 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, two metering stations, and associated ancillary pipeline facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facility would provide service to shippers desiring to contract for the receipt, storage, and vaporization of LNG and deliver natural gas through the associated sendout pipeline to interconnection points with existing pipeline systems in Louisiana, thereby providing an important source of energy for the nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect 540.3 acres of land for the terminal and pipeline, which includes 35.3 acres of land that would be converted to open water for the marine basin/berth and constriction dpcl areas. In addition, 36.2 acres of shallow water would be converted to deep water in Sabine Pass to allow access from the ship channel to the LNG ship berths and construction dock. Operation of the facilities would affect 341.3 acres of land, of which 236.6 acres would be converted permanently for operation of the LNG terminal facilities and 2.1 acres for the operation of the aboveground pipeline facilities. Most of the affected land would be open land consisting primarily of coastal prairie/grassland and wetlands, and a dredged material placement area at the LNG terminal site. Soils under-laying project structures are hydric, with a high compaction potential. The pipeline would traverse one intermittent stream and four perennial water bodies. A total of 156 acres of wetlands would be affected, including permanent displacement of 17.4 acres of emergent wetland, 30.3 acres of dredged material placement area, and 0.08 acre of emergent wetlands. An additional 0.17acre of forested wetlands would be converted to emergent wetland. Wetland mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project design. Operational air emissions would exceed state limits for nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 040388, 521 pages, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0170 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Electric Power KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Sabine Pass KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%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: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US HIGHWAY 89, BROWNING TO HUDSON BAY DIVIDE, GLACIER COUNTY, MONTANA. AN - 16367888; 11115 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 25.5-mile segment of US 89 from its junction with US 2 to the Hudson Bay Divide south of Saint Mary in Glacier County, Montana is proposed. The US Browning to Hudson Bay Divide project initially considered improvement of a network of roadways that perform some of the transportation functions that might otherwise be performed by US 89 if it met current roadway standards. State and federal authorities concluded that the most pressing need for roadway improvements within this roadway network exists in the transportation corridor between the Saint Mary Babb area, including points north of Babb and west of Saint Mary, and the Browning area, including points south and east of Browning. US 89 and Duck Lake Road function as the primary transportation links between these two areas. Hence, the project has focused on potential improvements to US 89 between Hudson Bay Divide and Browning as well as improvements to Duck Lake Road between US 89 south of Babb and Browning. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A) and two widening alternatives, are considered in the draft EIS. Alternative B would provide for a 32-foot cross-section, while alternative C would provide for a cross-section of 36 feet. The EIS also analyses a Duck Lake Road Option, which would consist of improvements in three areas along Duck Lake Road as an alternate truck route for US 89; this option could be implemented under any alternative. Alternative C, with the Duck Lake Road Option, has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a facility that meets current design standards, enhancing safety and highway operations within the corridor. The highway would particularly enhance the cultural resources and economic opportunities of the Blackfeet Nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 146 acres of wildlife habitat and increase fragmentation of forested habitat in the area and require the relocation of one residence and the acquisition of two areas of unimproved lands encompassing 472 acres. Extensive earthwork would be required along the corridor. The project would displace 19.8 acres of wetlands. Approximately 1,300 linear feet of South Fork Cut Bank Creek would be relocated. Bald eagle, grizzly bear, and bull trout, all of which are federally protected species, could be affected somewhat. Two historic bridges and the Blackfeet Highway, also an historically significant resource, would be affected, and several archaeologically significant cloth-offering sites would be disturbed. Highway structures would diminish the visual quality of the rural area. 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: 040390, 377 pages, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Montana KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+HIGHWAY+89%2C+BROWNING+TO+HUDSON+BAY+DIVIDE%2C+GLACIER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=US+HIGHWAY+89%2C+BROWNING+TO+HUDSON+BAY+DIVIDE%2C+GLACIER+COUNTY%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - ]Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Helena, Montana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SABINE PASS LNG AND PIPELINE PROJECT, CAMERON PARISH, LOUISIANA (DOCKET NOS CP04-47-000, CP04-38-000, CP04-39-000, AND CP04-40-000). AN - 16355080; 11113 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal and natural gas pipeline facilities in Cameron Parish, Louisiana are proposed by Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. and Chiniere Sabine Pass Pipeline Company. The project would involve the construction of a new marine terminal basin connected to the Sabine Pass Channel that would include a ship maneuvering area and two protected berths to unload up to 300 LNG ships per year; installation of two 30-inch-diameter stainless steel insulated LNG pipelines to transfer the LNG from the berth facilities to the LNG storage tanks; three all-metal, double-walled, single containment, top-entry LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal working volume of approximately 160,000 cubic meters (1.0 million barrels) and each with secondary containment dikes capable of containing 110 percent of the gross tank volume; nine intake pumps, each capable of discharging 4,300 gallons per minute (gpm), and 16 sendout pumps, each capable of discharging 1,686 gpm; 16 high-pressure submerged combustion vaporizers with a capacity of approximately 180 million cubic feet per day each, as well as other associated vaporization equipment; three boil-off gas compressors, instrumentation and safety systems, including hazard detection and fire response systems; packaged natural gas turbine/generator sets to generate power for the LNG terminal; ancillary utilities, buildings, and service facilities, including a metering facility; and approximately 16 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline, two metering stations, and associated ancillary pipeline facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The terminal facility would provide service to shippers desiring to contract for the receipt, storage, and vaporization of LNG and deliver natural gas through the associated sendout pipeline to interconnection points with existing pipeline systems in Louisiana, thereby providing an important source of energy for the nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect 540.3 acres of land for the terminal and pipeline, which includes 35.3 acres of land that would be converted to open water for the marine basin/berth and constriction dpcl areas. In addition, 36.2 acres of shallow water would be converted to deep water in Sabine Pass to allow access from the ship channel to the LNG ship berths and construction dock. Operation of the facilities would affect 341.3 acres of land, of which 236.6 acres would be converted permanently for operation of the LNG terminal facilities and 2.1 acres for the operation of the aboveground pipeline facilities. Most of the affected land would be open land consisting primarily of coastal prairie/grassland and wetlands, and a dredged material placement area at the LNG terminal site. Soils under-laying project structures are hydric, with a high compaction potential. The pipeline would traverse one intermittent stream and four perennial water bodies. A total of 156 acres of wetlands would be affected, including permanent displacement of 17.4 acres of emergent wetland, 30.3 acres of dredged material placement area, and 0.08 acre of emergent wetlands. An additional 0.17acre of forested wetlands would be converted to emergent wetland. Wetland mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project design. Operational air emissions would exceed state limits for nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 040388, 521 pages, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Research and Development KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0170 KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Electric Power KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Louisiana KW - Sabine Pass KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16355080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%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: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TH 36/STH 64 NEW ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND ST. CROIX COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1995). AN - 16354053; 11114 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Trunk Highway (TH) 36 in Washington County, Minnesota, is proposed. The project would include the functional replacement of the existing drawbridge over the St. Croix River and the reconstruction of approach highways leading to the bridge in St. Croix County, Wisconsin. The study area termini are the vicinity of County Road 15 in Minnesota and a point on STH 64 approximately 2.5 miles east of the state line in Wisconsin. The possibility of improving existing TH 36 from Houlton to New Richmond, 15 miles to the east, is currently under study. This represents a separate study based on transportation needs independent of the river crossing analysis. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of April 1995. In 1996, the National Park Service evaluated the project under Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and found that the project, as proposed, would have a direct adverse effect on the outstandingly remarkable scenic and recreational values for which the Lower St. Croix River was included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers. As a result, the necessary permits were withdrawn, and the project was not allowed to proceed. This draft supplement to the final EIS considers a new proposal and four No-Build Alternatives. Alternatives B-1, B, or D would provide a new four-lane bridge, with a bicycle/pedestrian trail on the north side of the bridge; the bridge would be located approximately 6,500 south of the Lift Bridge, 3,900 feet south of the bridge, or 1,940 feet south of the bridge, respectively. Alternative E would provide a new one-way bridge approximately 2,010 feet south of the Lift Bridge for two lanes of eastbound traffic, and use the Lift Bridge as a two-lane, one-way roadway for westbound traffic. The cost of alternatives B-1, C, D, and E are estimated to range from $230 million to $355 million, $230 million to $285 million, $245 million to $310 million, and $230 million to $275 million. Respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 6.0, 7.4, 7.3, and 3.1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to major transportation service, safety, and congestion improvements that would occur with the construction of any of the build alternatives, there would be several social, economic, and environmental benefits. A hindrance to resolution of a significant problem in planning the nature of the future transportation network serving 11 study area communities would be removed. Reduction in air pollutant emissions, energy use, and traffic-generated noise, as well as improved water quality would also result. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development, encompassing 285 to 305 acres, would affect three parks, the Lowe St. Croix National Riverway System, and the Stillwater Municipal Barge Facility Property, as well as resulting in the displacement of 20 to 27 commercial properties, eight to 22 single-family residences, two multi-family residences, 66 to 129 acres of farmland, 6.4 to 7.7 acres of wetlands, and 2.18 to 13.29 acres of trees and undergrowth along the river shorelines and the associated wildlife habitat. Floodplain encroachment would result from bridge construction. Storm water runoff from the roadway could significantly degrade water quality in the river. The project could impact freshwater mussels, dotted blazing star, osprey, and bald eagle, all of which are federally protected species. Numerous sensitive receptor sites and a portion of the river would be subject to traffic-generated noise in excess of federal and/or standards. There would be a potential for cumulative impacts to archaeological and historic resources due to changes in surrounding land use, accessibility, settings, and views. Construction workers would encounter 33 to 35 potentially contaminated sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0121D, Volume 14, Number 2 and 95-0139F, Volume 19, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040389, 591 pages and maps, August 12, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-90-02-DS KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Scenic Areas KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Shellfish KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - St. Croix River KW - Wisconsin KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&rft.title=TH+36%2FSTH+64+NEW+ST.+CROIX+RIVER+CROSSING%2C+WASHINGTON+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+AND+ST.+CROIX+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1995%29.&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: August 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, NAPA-SONOMA MARSHES WILDLIFE AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36435557; 11106 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a salinity reduction and habitat restoration project within the 9,460-acre Napa River Unit of the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area of California is proposed. The project area, which lies northeast of San Pablo Bay, provides a mosaic of habitats, including tidal habitats and managed ponds that support a variety of fish and terrestrial habitats. Species include endangered species, migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and anadromous and resident fish. The area also provides means of improving regional water quality, providing water recycling capabilities, providing enhanced open space for public use, and providing wildlife-compatible recreation opportunities. The area has suffered from historical losses of marsh ecosystems; increasing salinity and declining ecological value in several ponds; deterioration of levees and water control structures, which could affect salinity levels; increased restoration and operation costs; and inadequate water supply, particularly during summer months, resulting in increased salinity, acidic conditions, and the drying of some ponds. Alternatives considered in this final EIS address a No Action Alternative, two salinity reduction options, one water delivery option, and four habitat restoration options. Eight alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, have been derived from these options. The environmentally superior option has been identified as Alternative 6, which would involve breaching of bonds 2 and 4/5 to discharge water from the Napa River and Napa Slough, salinity reduction measures, and habitat restoration via delivery of recycled water and promotion of a mixture of ponds and tidal marsh habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Restoring tidal wetlands, including tidal marsh, within the unit would create a large contiguous tidal marsh for a diversity of fish and wildlife, including three endangered animal species; provide for a greater variety of slough channel sizes, a large increase in slough habitat, and greater connections among the Napa River, San Pablo Bay, and the tidal salt marsh, benefiting estuarine fish; establish a natural, self-sustaining system that could adjust naturally to changes in physical processes; create large tracts of tidal marsh extending up the Napa River that would allow fish and terrestrial wildlife species to adjust seasonal and long-term changes in salinity; increase the tidal prism that would scour slough to create large tidal channels benefiting fish and diving waterfowl, improve tidal circulation and, thereby, water quality, and increase the production of organic detritus. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would create temporary turbidity at the affected open-water and upland sites and upland disposal would affect local terrestrial wildlife habitat and aesthetics and destroy vegetation. Species dependent on low-salinity environments would be negatively affected in some areas. Project activities during implementation would hamper recreationists and degrade recreation-related aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0333D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040380, 1,420 pages, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recycling KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Toxicity KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Napa River KW - Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area KW - San Pablo Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%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 - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, NAPA-SONOMA MARSHES WILDLIFE AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, NAPA-SONOMA MARSHES WILDLIFE AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36374075; 11106-040380_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a salinity reduction and habitat restoration project within the 9,460-acre Napa River Unit of the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area of California is proposed. The project area, which lies northeast of San Pablo Bay, provides a mosaic of habitats, including tidal habitats and managed ponds that support a variety of fish and terrestrial habitats. Species include endangered species, migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and anadromous and resident fish. The area also provides means of improving regional water quality, providing water recycling capabilities, providing enhanced open space for public use, and providing wildlife-compatible recreation opportunities. The area has suffered from historical losses of marsh ecosystems; increasing salinity and declining ecological value in several ponds; deterioration of levees and water control structures, which could affect salinity levels; increased restoration and operation costs; and inadequate water supply, particularly during summer months, resulting in increased salinity, acidic conditions, and the drying of some ponds. Alternatives considered in this final EIS address a No Action Alternative, two salinity reduction options, one water delivery option, and four habitat restoration options. Eight alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, have been derived from these options. The environmentally superior option has been identified as Alternative 6, which would involve breaching of bonds 2 and 4/5 to discharge water from the Napa River and Napa Slough, salinity reduction measures, and habitat restoration via delivery of recycled water and promotion of a mixture of ponds and tidal marsh habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Restoring tidal wetlands, including tidal marsh, within the unit would create a large contiguous tidal marsh for a diversity of fish and wildlife, including three endangered animal species; provide for a greater variety of slough channel sizes, a large increase in slough habitat, and greater connections among the Napa River, San Pablo Bay, and the tidal salt marsh, benefiting estuarine fish; establish a natural, self-sustaining system that could adjust naturally to changes in physical processes; create large tracts of tidal marsh extending up the Napa River that would allow fish and terrestrial wildlife species to adjust seasonal and long-term changes in salinity; increase the tidal prism that would scour slough to create large tidal channels benefiting fish and diving waterfowl, improve tidal circulation and, thereby, water quality, and increase the production of organic detritus. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would create temporary turbidity at the affected open-water and upland sites and upland disposal would affect local terrestrial wildlife habitat and aesthetics and destroy vegetation. Species dependent on low-salinity environments would be negatively affected in some areas. Project activities during implementation would hamper recreationists and degrade recreation-related aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0333D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040380, 1,420 pages, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recycling KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Toxicity KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Napa River KW - Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area KW - San Pablo Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36374075?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%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 - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, NAPA-SONOMA MARSHES WILDLIFE AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, NAPA-SONOMA MARSHES WILDLIFE AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36361189; 11106-040380_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a salinity reduction and habitat restoration project within the 9,460-acre Napa River Unit of the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area of California is proposed. The project area, which lies northeast of San Pablo Bay, provides a mosaic of habitats, including tidal habitats and managed ponds that support a variety of fish and terrestrial habitats. Species include endangered species, migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and anadromous and resident fish. The area also provides means of improving regional water quality, providing water recycling capabilities, providing enhanced open space for public use, and providing wildlife-compatible recreation opportunities. The area has suffered from historical losses of marsh ecosystems; increasing salinity and declining ecological value in several ponds; deterioration of levees and water control structures, which could affect salinity levels; increased restoration and operation costs; and inadequate water supply, particularly during summer months, resulting in increased salinity, acidic conditions, and the drying of some ponds. Alternatives considered in this final EIS address a No Action Alternative, two salinity reduction options, one water delivery option, and four habitat restoration options. Eight alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, have been derived from these options. The environmentally superior option has been identified as Alternative 6, which would involve breaching of bonds 2 and 4/5 to discharge water from the Napa River and Napa Slough, salinity reduction measures, and habitat restoration via delivery of recycled water and promotion of a mixture of ponds and tidal marsh habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Restoring tidal wetlands, including tidal marsh, within the unit would create a large contiguous tidal marsh for a diversity of fish and wildlife, including three endangered animal species; provide for a greater variety of slough channel sizes, a large increase in slough habitat, and greater connections among the Napa River, San Pablo Bay, and the tidal salt marsh, benefiting estuarine fish; establish a natural, self-sustaining system that could adjust naturally to changes in physical processes; create large tracts of tidal marsh extending up the Napa River that would allow fish and terrestrial wildlife species to adjust seasonal and long-term changes in salinity; increase the tidal prism that would scour slough to create large tidal channels benefiting fish and diving waterfowl, improve tidal circulation and, thereby, water quality, and increase the production of organic detritus. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would create temporary turbidity at the affected open-water and upland sites and upland disposal would affect local terrestrial wildlife habitat and aesthetics and destroy vegetation. Species dependent on low-salinity environments would be negatively affected in some areas. Project activities during implementation would hamper recreationists and degrade recreation-related aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0333D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040380, 1,420 pages, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recycling KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Toxicity KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Napa River KW - Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area KW - San Pablo Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%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 - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, NAPA-SONOMA MARSHES WILDLIFE AREA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, NAPA-SONOMA MARSHES WILDLIFE AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36355095; 11106-040380_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a salinity reduction and habitat restoration project within the 9,460-acre Napa River Unit of the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area of California is proposed. The project area, which lies northeast of San Pablo Bay, provides a mosaic of habitats, including tidal habitats and managed ponds that support a variety of fish and terrestrial habitats. Species include endangered species, migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and anadromous and resident fish. The area also provides means of improving regional water quality, providing water recycling capabilities, providing enhanced open space for public use, and providing wildlife-compatible recreation opportunities. The area has suffered from historical losses of marsh ecosystems; increasing salinity and declining ecological value in several ponds; deterioration of levees and water control structures, which could affect salinity levels; increased restoration and operation costs; and inadequate water supply, particularly during summer months, resulting in increased salinity, acidic conditions, and the drying of some ponds. Alternatives considered in this final EIS address a No Action Alternative, two salinity reduction options, one water delivery option, and four habitat restoration options. Eight alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, have been derived from these options. The environmentally superior option has been identified as Alternative 6, which would involve breaching of bonds 2 and 4/5 to discharge water from the Napa River and Napa Slough, salinity reduction measures, and habitat restoration via delivery of recycled water and promotion of a mixture of ponds and tidal marsh habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Restoring tidal wetlands, including tidal marsh, within the unit would create a large contiguous tidal marsh for a diversity of fish and wildlife, including three endangered animal species; provide for a greater variety of slough channel sizes, a large increase in slough habitat, and greater connections among the Napa River, San Pablo Bay, and the tidal salt marsh, benefiting estuarine fish; establish a natural, self-sustaining system that could adjust naturally to changes in physical processes; create large tracts of tidal marsh extending up the Napa River that would allow fish and terrestrial wildlife species to adjust seasonal and long-term changes in salinity; increase the tidal prism that would scour slough to create large tidal channels benefiting fish and diving waterfowl, improve tidal circulation and, thereby, water quality, and increase the production of organic detritus. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would create temporary turbidity at the affected open-water and upland sites and upland disposal would affect local terrestrial wildlife habitat and aesthetics and destroy vegetation. Species dependent on low-salinity environments would be negatively affected in some areas. Project activities during implementation would hamper recreationists and degrade recreation-related aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0333D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040380, 1,420 pages, August 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recycling KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Toxicity KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Napa River KW - Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area KW - San Pablo Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%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 - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - RDX biodegradation column study: comparison of electron donors for biologically induced reductive transformation in groundwater. AN - 66660738; 15225929 AB - A series of column studies, using site-specific soil and groundwater, were conducted to determine the feasibility of biologically active zone enhancement (BAZE) process for reductive biotransformation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) in groundwater. This treatability study examined the use of four amendments (acetate, ethanol, soluble starch, and acetate plus ammonium), which served as electron donors. Triplicate columns, with groundwater residence time of about 27.5 h, were used for each amendment treatment and the amendment control. In treatment columns amendment dosing was 500 mg/L C for carbon sources and 100 mg/L N for ammonium. Each of the amendment treatments reduced RDX inlet concentrations of 100 microg/L to less than 1 microg/L. The highest first-order RDX biodegradation rate ranged between 0.140 and 0.447 h(-1) for acetate amended columns as compared to 0.037 to 0.083 h(-1) in control columns (no amendment). The addition of soluble starch resulted in increased toxicity (based on Microtox analysis) that was partially removed by biological activity in the columns. Ethanol addition itself did not result in increased toxicity but biological activity in this system did induce Microtox toxicity. Acetate did not have any Microtox toxicity associated with it. The addition of ammonium as a nitrogen source did not significantly increase the removal rate of RDX. Based on these observations acetate was selected for the field demonstration. JF - Journal of hazardous materials AU - Davis, Jeffrey L AU - Wani, Altaf H AU - O'Neal, Brenda R AU - Hansen, Lance D AD - Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (Attn: CEERD-EP-E), 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. Y1 - 2004/08/09/ PY - 2004 DA - 2004 Aug 09 SP - 45 EP - 54 VL - 112 IS - 1-2 SN - 0304-3894, 0304-3894 KW - Acetates KW - 0 KW - Quaternary Ammonium Compounds KW - Triazines KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - Ethanol KW - 3K9958V90M KW - Starch KW - 9005-25-8 KW - cyclonite KW - W91SSV5831 KW - Index Medicus KW - Electrons KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- analysis KW - Kinetics KW - Acetates -- chemistry KW - Ethanol -- chemistry KW - Biodegradation, Environmental KW - Starch -- chemistry KW - Quaternary Ammonium Compounds -- chemistry KW - Fresh Water -- chemistry KW - Triazines -- analysis KW - Water Pollution, Chemical -- prevention & control KW - Triazines -- chemistry UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66660738?accountid=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+hazardous+materials&rft.atitle=RDX+biodegradation+column+study%3A+comparison+of+electron+donors+for+biologically+induced+reductive+transformation+in+groundwater.&rft.au=Davis%2C+Jeffrey+L%3BWani%2C+Altaf+H%3BO%27Neal%2C+Brenda+R%3BHansen%2C+Lance+D&rft.aulast=Davis&rft.aufirst=Jeffrey&rft.date=2004-08-09&rft.volume=112&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=45&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+hazardous+materials&rft.issn=03043894&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2004-12-10 N1 - Date created - 2004-06-30 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 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 (DRAFT 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1996). AN - 36360657; 10910-040367_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 strick and the Susquehannna 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 toi 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 shurb 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.) JF - EPA number: 040367, 133 pages and maps, August 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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/36360657?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-06&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+%28DRAFT+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+%28DRAFT+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 - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2004 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 (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1996). AN - 16345701; 10910 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 strick and the Susquehannna 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 toi 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 shurb 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.) JF - EPA number: 040367, 133 pages and maps, August 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests 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/16345701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-06&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+%28DRAFT+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+%28DRAFT+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 - Draft. Preparation date: August 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bioavailability of hydrophobic organic contaminants and quality of organic carbon AN - 754566470; 13404569 AB - U.S. laws require that contaminant bioaccumulation potential be evaluated before dredged material can be recycled. Simple fugacity models, e.g. organic contaminant aqueous partition coefficient (K sub(oc))-derived theoretical bioaccumulation potential, are commonly used to estimate the partitioning of hydrophobic organic contaminants between sediment organic matter and organism lipid. K sub(oc)-derived models, with or without the addition of a soot carbon term, did not accurately or consistently predict total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorobiphenyls partitioning of eight sediments from ongoing dredging operations onto C sub(18)-coated filter paper. These models also failed to predict the partitioning of individual PAHs from these eight sediments. These data underscore the trade-offs between the ease of using simple models and the uncertainty of predicted partitioning values. JF - Environmental Chemistry Letters AU - Fredrickson, Herbert L AU - Furey, John AU - Talley, Jeffrey W AU - Richmond, Margaret AD - Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army R&D Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, MS 39180-6199, Vicksburg, U.S.A., Herbert.L.Fredrickson@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - Aug 2004 SP - 77 EP - 81 PB - Springer-Verlag (Heidelberg), Tiergartenstrasse 17 Heidelberg 69121 Germany VL - 2 IS - 2 SN - 1610-3653, 1610-3653 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Environment Abstracts KW - Sediment pollution KW - Lipids KW - Organic matter KW - Organic carbon KW - USA KW - Soot KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Carbon KW - Dredging KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - Contaminants KW - P 0000:AIR POLLUTION KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/754566470?accountid=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+Chemistry+Letters&rft.atitle=Bioavailability+of+hydrophobic+organic+contaminants+and+quality+of+organic+carbon&rft.au=Fredrickson%2C+Herbert+L%3BFurey%2C+John%3BTalley%2C+Jeffrey+W%3BRichmond%2C+Margaret&rft.aulast=Fredrickson&rft.aufirst=Herbert&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Chemistry+Letters&rft.issn=16103653&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10311-004-0062-y LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Sediment pollution; Soot; Carbon; Bioaccumulation; Organic matter; Lipids; Organic carbon; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; Dredging; Contaminants; USA DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10311-004-0062-y ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Shear band evolution and accumulated microstructural development in Cosserat media AN - 51784596; 2004-079966 AB - This paper prepares the ground for the continuum analysis of shear band evolution using a Cosserat/micropolar constitutive equation derived from micromechanical considerations. The nature of the constitutive response offers two key advantages over other existing models. Firstly, its non-local character obviates the mathematical difficulties of traditional analyses, and facilitates an investigation of the shear band evolution (i.e. the regime beyond the onset of localization). Secondly, the constitutive model parameters are physical properties of particles and their interactions (e.g. particle stiffness coefficients, coefficients of inter-particle rolling friction and sliding friction), as opposed to poorly understood fitting parameters. In this regard, the model is based on the same material properties used as model inputs to a discrete element (DEM) analysis, therefore, the micromechanics approach provides the vehicle for incorporating results not only from physical experiments but also from DEM simulations. Although the capabilities of such constitutive models are still limited, much can be discerned from their general rate form. In this paper, an attempt is made to distinguish between those aspects of the continuum theory of localization that are independent of the constitutive model, and those that require significant advances in the understanding of micromechanics. Abstract Copyright (2004), Wiley Periodicals, Inc. JF - International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics AU - Tordesillas, A AU - Peters, J F AU - Gardiner, B S Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - August 2004 SP - 981 EP - 1010 PB - Wiley & Sons, Chichester VL - 28 IS - 10 SN - 0363-9061, 0363-9061 KW - soil mechanics KW - failures KW - biaxial tests KW - equations KW - deformation KW - bifurcation KW - porosity KW - physical properties KW - Cosserat continuum theory KW - granular materials KW - mathematical methods KW - shear KW - fabric KW - anisotropy KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51784596?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+for+Numerical+and+Analytical+Methods+in+Geomechanics&rft.atitle=Shear+band+evolution+and+accumulated+microstructural+development+in+Cosserat+media&rft.au=Tordesillas%2C+A%3BPeters%2C+J+F%3BGardiner%2C+B+S&rft.aulast=Tordesillas&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=981&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+for+Numerical+and+Analytical+Methods+in+Geomechanics&rft.issn=03639061&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fnag.343 L2 - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/3312/home 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 29 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - anisotropy; biaxial tests; bifurcation; Cosserat continuum theory; deformation; equations; fabric; failures; granular materials; mathematical methods; physical properties; porosity; shear; soil mechanics DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nag.343 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Initiation of movement of quartz particles AN - 51773343; 2005-001546 AB - A theoretical description of the initiation of movement of sediments consisting of uniform-size, quartz particles is developed. These sediments behave in a noncohesive manner for coarse-grained particles but show cohesive behavior for fine-grained particles, i.e., as the particle size decreases, the critical shear stress increases and also becomes strongly dependent on the bulk density. The analysis includes gravitational, lift, drag, and cohesive forces as well as changes in bulk density and is uniformly valid for the range of particle sizes investigated, from fine-grained, cohesive particles to coarse-grained, noncohesive particles. Excellent agreement between theory and experiments is obtained. The analysis is also extended to quartz particles with small amounts of an added clay, bentonite, which makes the mixture more cohesive. This increase in cohesivity is greatest for intermediate size particles. An additional binding force due to the bentonite must then be included in the analysis. JF - Journal of Hydraulic Engineering AU - Lick, Wilbert AU - Lin, Lijun AU - Gailani, Joe Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - August 2004 SP - 755 EP - 761 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY VL - 130 IS - 8 SN - 0733-9429, 0733-9429 KW - silicates KW - sediment-water interface KW - stream transport KW - density KW - silica minerals KW - erosion KW - shear stress KW - laboratory studies KW - sedimentary rocks KW - movement KW - framework silicates KW - hydrology KW - experimental studies KW - bentonite KW - sediment transport KW - cohesionless materials KW - grain size KW - rates KW - mathematical models KW - effects KW - equations KW - critical flow KW - forces KW - cohesive materials KW - quartz KW - clastic rocks KW - particles KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51773343?accountid=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+Hydraulic+Engineering&rft.atitle=Initiation+of+movement+of+quartz+particles&rft.au=Lick%2C+Wilbert%3BLin%2C+Lijun%3BGailani%2C+Joe&rft.aulast=Lick&rft.aufirst=Wilbert&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=755&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Engineering&rft.issn=07339429&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9429%282004%29130%3A8%28755%29 L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/hyo/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 25 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - JHEND8 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bentonite; clastic rocks; cohesionless materials; cohesive materials; critical flow; density; effects; equations; erosion; experimental studies; forces; framework silicates; grain size; hydrology; laboratory studies; mathematical models; movement; particles; quartz; rates; sediment transport; sediment-water interface; sedimentary rocks; shear stress; silica minerals; silicates; stream transport DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004)130:8(755) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Ground Water AN - 51474348; 2007-026911 JF - Ground Water AU - Brown, Christopher J AU - Smith, Pauline AU - Dasher, Richard M AU - Kwiatkowski, Peter AU - Wanless, Harold R Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - August 2004 SP - 478 PB - National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH VL - 42 IS - 4 SN - 0017-467X, 0017-467X KW - United States KW - natural resources KW - Everglades KW - conservation KW - surface water KW - injection KW - ecology KW - water resources KW - research KW - Florida KW - ground water KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51474348?accountid=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=Ground+Water&rft.au=Brown%2C+Christopher+J%3BSmith%2C+Pauline%3BDasher%2C+Richard+M%3BKwiatkowski%2C+Peter%3BWanless%2C+Harold+R&rft.aulast=Brown&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=478&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 - 2007-01-01 N1 - PubXState - OH N1 - SuppNotes - For reference to original see Wanless, Harold R., Ground Water, Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 157, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-16 N1 - CODEN - GRWAAP N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - conservation; ecology; Everglades; Florida; ground water; injection; natural resources; research; surface water; United States; water resources ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Three-Dimensional Eutrophication Model of the Lower St. Johns River, Florida AN - 20723977; 7170608 AB - The CE-QUAL-ICM three-dimensional eutrophication model was applied to the lower, estuarine, portion of the St. Johns River, Florida. Transport processes were obtained from the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code. Model application period was December 1996 through November 1998. The model activated 28 state variables in the water column including physical variables, three algal groups, multiple forms of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and silica, and dissolved oxygen. Several features were added to the model for this application. These included representation of the internal algal phosphorus pool, distinction of labile and refractory organic matter, and representation of nitrogen fixation. The water column was coupled to a predictive sediment diagenesis model that computed sediment-water fluxes of dissolved oxygen, chemical oxygen demand, ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, and silica, based on computed inputs of particulate organic matter. Model results were compared to an extensive suite of observations in the water column and benthic sediments. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Tillman, D H AU - Cerco, C F AU - Noel, M R AU - Martin, J L AU - Hamrick, J AD - Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - August 2004 VL - TR-04 IS - 13 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Phosphorus KW - transport processes KW - fluid dynamics KW - organic phosphorus KW - Water column KW - Dissolved oxygen KW - Organic Matter KW - Algae KW - ammonium nitrate KW - Ammonium compounds KW - Rivers KW - ASW, USA, Florida KW - Sediment chemistry KW - Estuaries KW - Brackish KW - Chemical oxygen demand KW - Model Studies KW - Nitrogen fixation KW - Fluid dynamics KW - Nitrogen KW - Diagenesis KW - Prediction KW - Eutrophication KW - Models KW - Carbon KW - silica KW - Brackishwater environment KW - Sediment pollution KW - Organic matter KW - Dissolved Oxygen KW - Sediments KW - Phosphates KW - Silica KW - Phosphate KW - Particulate organic matter KW - water column KW - Waterways KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - K 03450:Ecology KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20723977?accountid=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=Technical+Reports.+U.S.+Army+Engineer+Waterways+Experiment+Station%2C+Environmental+Laboratory&rft.atitle=Three-Dimensional+Eutrophication+Model+of+the+Lower+St.+Johns+River%2C+Florida&rft.au=Tillman%2C+D+H%3BCerco%2C+C+F%3BNoel%2C+M+R%3BMartin%2C+J+L%3BHamrick%2C+J&rft.aulast=Tillman&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=TR-04&rft.issue=13&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Technical+Reports.+U.S.+Army+Engineer+Waterways+Experiment+Station%2C+Environmental+Laboratory&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Prediction; Sediment chemistry; Eutrophication; Organic matter; Estuaries; Chemical oxygen demand; Dissolved oxygen; Nitrogen fixation; Particulate organic matter; Fluid dynamics; Brackishwater environment; Ammonium compounds; Diagenesis; Rivers; Phosphorus; Water column; Sediments; Models; Silica; Carbon; Phosphate; ammonium nitrate; Algae; Sediment pollution; transport processes; fluid dynamics; organic phosphorus; Phosphates; silica; water column; Nitrogen; Organic Matter; Dissolved Oxygen; Waterways; Model Studies; ASW, USA, Florida; Brackish ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Three-Dimensional Eutrophication Model of Lake Washington, Washington State AN - 19858116; 7170607 AB - The CE-QUAL-ICM three-dimensional eutrophication model was applied to Lake Washington, northwestern Washington State, for the period 1995-1997. Transport processes were obtained from the companion CH3D-WES hydrodynamic model. The model activated 18 state variables in the water column including physical variables; phytoplankton; multiple forms of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus; dissolved oxygen; and fecal coliform. The model provided excellent representation of the annual cycle of temperature, chlorophyll, nutrients, and dissolved oxygen in the lake. The vertical structure was also well-represented. The water column was coupled to a predictive sediment diagenesis model that computed sediment-water fluxes of dissolved oxygen, methane, ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate, based on computed inputs of particulate organic matter. Computed values of deposition and fluxes were in reasonable agreement with published values. Nutrient loads were calculated and nutrient budgets were constructed as part of the model exercise. Load sources included river inflows, distributed loads, sewer overflows, and atmospheric loading. The Sammamish River was identified as the largest source of nutrients to Lake Washington, followed by the Cedar River and other distributed sources. The majority of the nutrient load is deposited in the sediments. A lesser amount leaves via Lake Union. Nutrient loads in this study were 30 percent (nitrogen) to 60 percent (phosphorus) higher than the loads from the late 1970's. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Cerco, C F AU - Noel, M R AU - Kim, S-C Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - August 2004 KW - Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology; Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Chlorophyll KW - Hydrodynamics KW - Phosphorus KW - Phytoplankton KW - Nutrients KW - Microbial contamination KW - Water column KW - Dissolved oxygen KW - USA, Washington KW - Lakes KW - Transport processes KW - ammonium nitrate KW - Ammonium compounds KW - Rivers KW - Sediment chemistry KW - Leaves KW - Pollution Load KW - Annual cycles KW - USA, New Jersey, Union L. KW - Model Studies KW - Eutrophic Lakes KW - Physical training KW - Vertical profiles KW - nutrients KW - Nitrogen KW - Diagenesis KW - Prediction KW - Overflow KW - Eutrophication KW - Nutrient loading KW - Particulates KW - Models KW - Carbon KW - Sewers KW - Temperature effects KW - Sediment pollution KW - Methane KW - Fecal coliforms KW - Annual variations KW - Dissolved Oxygen KW - Temperature KW - Sediments KW - Phosphates KW - Phosphate KW - Particulate organic matter KW - water column KW - USA, Washington, Seattle, Washington L. KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - K 03320:Cell Biology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19858116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - Contrast the invite bid of Asian Development Bank loan and domestic AN - 19405241; 6028075 AB - The Asian Development Bank is a financial organization of development of a local area to face to the Asia Pacific Ocean region government. In the last few years, ADB loan more and more drive our country the each profession applies. This paper passes an evaluation bid example, contrasted the different and similar of the invite bid of the ADB loan invite bid and domestic in brief. JF - Water Conservancy Science and Technology and Economy AU - Ma, Kui-xing AU - Cao, Lei AD - Heilongjiang Investigation Design & Research Institute for Water Resources Hydroelectric, Harbin 150080, China Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - August 2004 SP - 203 EP - 204 VL - 10 IS - 4 SN - 1006-7175, 1006-7175 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Organizations KW - Trade KW - Financing KW - Loans KW - Economic Aspects KW - Economics KW - INW, Asia KW - Industries KW - Banks KW - Commerce KW - Technology KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09424:Applied economics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19405241?accountid=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+Conservancy+Science+and+Technology+and+Economy&rft.atitle=Contrast+the+invite+bid+of+Asian+Development+Bank+loan+and+domestic&rft.au=Ma%2C+Kui-xing%3BCao%2C+Lei&rft.aulast=Ma&rft.aufirst=Kui-xing&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=203&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Conservancy+Science+and+Technology+and+Economy&rft.issn=10067175&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - Chinese DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Financing; Trade; Economics; Industries; Commerce; Organizations; Loans; Banks; Economic Aspects; Technology; INW, Asia ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Simulations of Snow, Ice, and Near-Surface Atmospheric Processes on Ice Station Weddell AN - 18043333; 5988842 AB - The 4-month drift of Ice Station Weddell (ISW) produced over 2000 h of nearly continuous measurements in the atmospheric surface layer and in the snow and sea ice in the western Weddell Sea. This paper reports simulations, based on these data, of processes in the air, snow, and sea ice at ISW using SNTHERM, a one-dimensional mass and energy balance model. An earlier version of SNTHERM had to be adapted, however, to treat the flooding that often occurs on sea ice in the western Weddell Sea. To treat this layer of slush and brine, SNTHERM holds the brine salinity constant at its initial value of 31.5 psu until 80% of this slush layer freezes. The current version of SNTHERM also incorporates a new parameterization for the roughness length for wind speed, z 0, derived from analyses of ISW eddy-covariance data. SNTHERM's simulations are validated with temperature measurements within the ice and snow and with eddy-covariance measurements of the surface momentum and sensible and latent heat fluxes. The simulated turbulent fluxes agree fairly well with the measured fluxes, except the simulated sensible heat flux is biased low by 4-5 W m-2 for both stable and unstable stratification. The simulated temperature profiles in the snow and ice also agree well with the measured temperatures. In particular, allowing seawater to flush the slush layer until it is 80% frozen delays the freezing of this layer such that its behavior mirrors the data. JF - Journal of Hydrometeorology AU - Andreas, EL AU - Jordan, R E AU - Makshtas, A P AD - U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-1290, eandreas@crrel.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - Aug 2004 SP - 611 EP - 624 PB - American Meteorological Society VL - 5 IS - 4 SN - 1525-755X, 1525-755X KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Sea ice observations KW - Snow KW - Freezing KW - Temperature KW - Sea ice-snow cover relationships KW - Latent Heat KW - Snow cover data KW - Salinity KW - Ice island observation techniques KW - Energy KW - Sea Ice KW - PSW, Weddell Sea KW - Slush KW - Brines KW - M2 551.326.7:Sea ice: pack ice, drift ice, floe (551.326.7) KW - M2 551.581:Latitudinal Influences (551.581) KW - SW 0820:Snow, ice and frost UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18043333?accountid=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:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://journals.allenpress.com/jrnlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1525-755X&volume=5&page=611 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Snow; Sea Ice; Temperature; Slush; Brines; Latent Heat; Freezing; Salinity; Energy; PSW, Weddell Sea; Ice island observation techniques; Sea ice observations; Sea ice-snow cover relationships; Snow cover data DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1525-7541(2004)005(0611:SOSIAN)2.0.CO;2 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sensitivity of Antarctic Precipitation to Sea Ice Concentrations in a General Circulation Model AN - 17291402; 6055303 AB - Several recent studies have highlighted the connections among observed climate variability, such as the Southern Oscillation, sea ice cover, and Antarctic precipitation. The direct contribution of observed sea ice variability to precipitation has not yet been investigated. The sensitivity of Antarctic precipitation to a range of sea ice concentrations is investigated using the Community Climate Model version 3 (CCM3) general circulation model. Sea ice concentrations derived from passive-microwave satellite imagery from 1979 to 1991 are used as surface boundary conditions for climate simulations in a model that resolves both ice-covered and ice-free fractions of each grid cell. Simulations are performed with climatological average ice concentrations, maximum and minimum concentrations, and an ensemble of simulations with interannually varying concentrations from 1979 to 1991. The minimum-ice run produces greater precipitation and onshore winds along the Antarctic coastal topography, except for the western Antarctic, where offshore winds reduce precipitation. The interannually varying model runs exhibit a seasonal response consistent with this picture, as greater precipitation is associated with reduced ice concentrations. The satellite-derived ice concentrations used here (and the model simulations) exhibit significant differences between the periods of coverage from the two satellite instruments with different spatial resolutions and other characteristics. The results suggest that variability in sea ice concentrations does contribute to variability in Antarctic precipitation; however, the modeled precipitation has a greater response to the instrument-related differences than to the estimated ice variability. JF - Journal of Climate AU - Weatherly, J W AD - Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH 03755, weather@crrel.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/08// PY - 2004 DA - August 2004 SP - 3214 EP - 3223 PB - American Meteorological Society VL - 17 IS - 16 SN - 0894-8755, 0894-8755 KW - Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - Variability KW - Antarctic precipitation KW - Sea ice concentrations KW - Climatic changes KW - Antarctic KW - Boundary conditions KW - Climatic variability KW - Sea Ice KW - Wind KW - Topography KW - Marine KW - Ocean-ice-atmosphere system KW - Climate models KW - Boundary Conditions KW - Climates KW - Atmospheric circulation KW - Precipitation KW - Model Studies KW - Southern Oscillation KW - Satellite sensing KW - Sea ice KW - Sensitivity analysis KW - General circulation models KW - Precipitation variability KW - Ocean-atmosphere-ice models KW - Q2 09243:Structure, mechanics and thermodynamics KW - O 2010:Physical Oceanography KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - M2 551.581:Latitudinal Influences (551.581) KW - M2 551.577:General Precipitation (551.577) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17291402?accountid=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+Climate&rft.atitle=Sensitivity+of+Antarctic+Precipitation+to+Sea+Ice+Concentrations+in+a+General+Circulation+Model&rft.au=Weatherly%2C+J+W&rft.aulast=Weatherly&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=16&rft.spage=3214&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Climate&rft.issn=08948755&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175%2F1520-0442%282004%29017%283214%3ASOAPTS%292.0.CO%3B2 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Satellite sensing; Sea ice; Ocean-ice-atmosphere system; Climatic changes; Atmospheric circulation; Southern Oscillation; Climate models; Climatic variability; Sensitivity analysis; General circulation models; Sea ice concentrations; Antarctic precipitation; Precipitation variability; Ocean-atmosphere-ice models; Boundary conditions; Topography; Variability; Boundary Conditions; Climates; Sea Ice; Precipitation; Antarctic; Wind; Model Studies; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017(3214:SOAPTS)2.0.CO;2 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36379279; 10908-040360_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0060D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040360, 641 pages, July 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36379279?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BURLINGTON BYPASS, STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY (STH) 36, STH 11, AND STH 83, RACINE AND WALWORTH COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BURLINGTON BYPASS, STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY (STH) 36, STH 11, AND STH 83, RACINE AND WALWORTH COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 36373327; 10907-040359_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane bypass around the city of Burlington, in the southwestern portion of Racine County and the eastern portion of Walworth County, Wisconsin, is proposed. Major highways serving the project area are State Trunk Highway (STH) 36, STH 83, STH 11, and STH 142, each providing access into the city of Burlington. Each of these is a major link in the transportation system serving southeastern Wisconsin, an area that contains 37 percent of the state's population. The convergence of these highways in and around Burlington has resulted in high traffic volumes and crash rates above statewide averages. Transportation needs identified by the community include reducing truck traffic, addressing safety concerns and substandard roadway design, improving access to area businesses and planned development, and addressing capacity problems. The project would be 8 to 11 miles long, bypassing Burlington to the east, south, and west. Local studies conducted in 1988 and 1990 concluded that a northern bypass would have adverse environmental impacts and would not carry a high volume of traffic. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management, transportation control measures, congestion management measures, and four bypass alternatives. The preferred action, a bypass alternative, would extend 11 miles from STH 36/83 north and east of the city to its western terminus at STH 11. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $102 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate traffic congestion in downtown Burlington, improve route safety, reduce truck traffic in town, improve highway system linkage, and enhance regional economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 535 acres of new rights-of-way, 59 acres of wetlands, 33.1 acres of woodland, 374.5 acres of farmland, 81.7 acres within environmental corridors, 18 acres of natural areas, 18 residences, and five businesses. Property would be severed at 19 farms. Habitat for federal protected species would be affected. One archaeological site would be disturbed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at a number of sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter nine 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.), 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 96-0180D, Volume 20, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040359, 427 pages and maps, July 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-96-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Wetlands 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/36373327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BURLINGTON+BYPASS%2C+STATE+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28STH%29+36%2C+STH+11%2C+AND+STH+83%2C+RACINE+AND+WALWORTH+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=BURLINGTON+BYPASS%2C+STATE+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28STH%29+36%2C+STH+11%2C+AND+STH+83%2C+RACINE+AND+WALWORTH+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: July 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36369130; 10908-040360_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0060D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040360, 641 pages, July 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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 - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BURLINGTON BYPASS, STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY (STH) 36, STH 11, AND STH 83, RACINE AND WALWORTH COUNTIES, WISCONSIN. AN - 16361267; 10907 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane bypass around the city of Burlington, in the southwestern portion of Racine County and the eastern portion of Walworth County, Wisconsin, is proposed. Major highways serving the project area are State Trunk Highway (STH) 36, STH 83, STH 11, and STH 142, each providing access into the city of Burlington. Each of these is a major link in the transportation system serving southeastern Wisconsin, an area that contains 37 percent of the state's population. The convergence of these highways in and around Burlington has resulted in high traffic volumes and crash rates above statewide averages. Transportation needs identified by the community include reducing truck traffic, addressing safety concerns and substandard roadway design, improving access to area businesses and planned development, and addressing capacity problems. The project would be 8 to 11 miles long, bypassing Burlington to the east, south, and west. Local studies conducted in 1988 and 1990 concluded that a northern bypass would have adverse environmental impacts and would not carry a high volume of traffic. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management, transportation control measures, congestion management measures, and four bypass alternatives. The preferred action, a bypass alternative, would extend 11 miles from STH 36/83 north and east of the city to its western terminus at STH 11. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $102 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would alleviate traffic congestion in downtown Burlington, improve route safety, reduce truck traffic in town, improve highway system linkage, and enhance regional economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace 535 acres of new rights-of-way, 59 acres of wetlands, 33.1 acres of woodland, 374.5 acres of farmland, 81.7 acres within environmental corridors, 18 acres of natural areas, 18 residences, and five businesses. Property would be severed at 19 farms. Habitat for federal protected species would be affected. One archaeological site would be disturbed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at a number of sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter nine 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.), 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 96-0180D, Volume 20, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040359, 427 pages and maps, July 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WI-EIS-96-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Wetlands 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/16361267?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BURLINGTON+BYPASS%2C+STATE+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28STH%29+36%2C+STH+11%2C+AND+STH+83%2C+RACINE+AND+WALWORTH+COUNTIES%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=BURLINGTON+BYPASS%2C+STATE+TRUNK+HIGHWAY+%28STH%29+36%2C+STH+11%2C+AND+STH+83%2C+RACINE+AND+WALWORTH+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: July 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF LONG BEACH, PIER J SOUTH TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PORT OF LONG BEACH, PIER J SOUTH TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36373339; 10900-040351_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of terminal facilities at Pier J South at the southern end of the city of Long Beach, California is proposed. The site includes portions of the Southeast Basin and the Long Beach Main Channel. Detailed cargo forecase studies indicate that the volume of containerized cargo transported through the port will increase between 6.2 and 7.6 percent per year, which will lead to more than a doubling of cargo volume in 20 years. In order to serve the anticipated additional cargo associated with expanding export and import volumes and the requirements of larger vessels, the port has made use of existing waterfront property and its renovation to meet future needs. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, the alternative which would best meet the needs of the Port, would involve development of a marine terminal of up to 385 acres by consolidating and expanding the existing Pacific Container Terminal and Maersk Container Terminal. Of the 385 acres, approximately 270 acres would be existing land and 115 acres would be new land created by landfilling. Alternative 3 would develop a marine terminal of approximately 345 acres by consolidating and expanding the existing Pacific Container Terminal and Maersk Terminal. Of the 345 acres, approximately 270 acres would be existing land and 75 acres would be new land created by landfilling. Alternative 4 would develop a marine terminal of approximately 322 acres by consolidating and expanding the existing Pacific Container Terminal and Maersk Terminal. Of the 322 acres, approximately 270 acres would be existing land and 52 acres would be new land created by landfilling. The primary sources of fill material for the alternatives would probably include dredge locations within the port and non-port projects outside the harbor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new terminal facilities would accommodate the anticipated additional cargo requirements associated with growing export and import volumes be redeveloping, modernizing, and expanding existing terminal space. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fill material and quarry rock would displace 52 to 115 acres of existing sedimentary bottom and the associated benthos and eliminate the associated water column. The increase in vessel traffic in the port would increase the risk of the introduction of nonindigenous species via ballast releases. Construction equipment would generate significant emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and reactive organic compounds. The facilities would be located within an areas prone to seismic activity. Increased truck and equipment traffic during construction would significantly decrease the level of service on local roadways serving the terminal 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 abstracts of the previous EISs, see 01-0358D, Volume 25, Number 3, 03-0242D, Volume 27, Number 2, and 04-0117F, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040351, 1,241 pages, July 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Landfills KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Analyses KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+LONG+BEACH%2C+PIER+J+SOUTH+TERMINAL+DEVELOPMENT%2C+CITY+OF+LONG+BEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=PORT+OF+LONG+BEACH%2C+PIER+J+SOUTH+TERMINAL+DEVELOPMENT%2C+CITY+OF+LONG+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, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 33 NELSONVILLE BYPASS, CITY OF NELSONVILLE, HOCKING AND ATHENS COUNTIES, OHIO. AN - 36435975; 10893 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 8.54-mile section of US 33 to a four-lane controlled access expressway between Haydenville in Hocking County and New Floodwood in Athens County, Ohio is proposed. US extends from the southwest corner of Michigan to Richmond, Virginia, carrying a substantial volume of interstate traffic between cities such as South Bend and Fort Wayne, Indiana and Columbus, Ohio and Charleston, West Virginia. Hilly terrain limits the number of parallel corridors, concentrating regional travel within the US 33 corridor. Within the project study corridor US 33 suffers from fewer lanes than necessary and a portion that passes through Nelsonville, which constitutes a significant traffic bottleneck. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A/C) would provide for a four-lane roadway bypassing Nelsonville. Seven local roads would be bridged. Costs of construction, rights-of-way acquisition, and mine mitigation are estimated at $111.0 million, $5.4 million, and 37.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would increase roadway capacity significantly and enhance traffic flow by bypassing Nelsonville. Through traffic would be removed from Nelsonville, enhancing community cohesion and safety. Regional traffic movements would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of rights-of-way would displace 48 residences, three businesses, 10.5 acres of farmland, 57 acres of 100-year floodplain, 707 acres of forested land, nearly 13 acres of wetlands, and land and vegetation within the Wayne National Forest, and the alignment would impact 37,381 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel. The preferred alternative would also cause more substantial forest habitat fragmentation. One off-road vehicle trail within the national forest would be affected. Indiana bat, a federally protected species, would be significantly impacted, and another protected species cerulean warbler would suffer moderate impacts; all other impacts to protected species would be low or nonexistent. Access to four oil and gas wells would be eliminated. Traffic-generated noise levels in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste materials site during project implementation. 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: 040343, 476 pages and maps, July 20, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Ohio KW - Wayne National Forest 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/36435975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 33 NELSONVILLE BYPASS, CITY OF NELSONVILLE, HOCKING AND ATHENS COUNTIES, OHIO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 33 NELSONVILLE BYPASS, CITY OF NELSONVILLE, HOCKING AND ATHENS COUNTIES, OHIO. AN - 36370526; 10893-040343_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 8.54-mile section of US 33 to a four-lane controlled access expressway between Haydenville in Hocking County and New Floodwood in Athens County, Ohio is proposed. US extends from the southwest corner of Michigan to Richmond, Virginia, carrying a substantial volume of interstate traffic between cities such as South Bend and Fort Wayne, Indiana and Columbus, Ohio and Charleston, West Virginia. Hilly terrain limits the number of parallel corridors, concentrating regional travel within the US 33 corridor. Within the project study corridor US 33 suffers from fewer lanes than necessary and a portion that passes through Nelsonville, which constitutes a significant traffic bottleneck. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A/C) would provide for a four-lane roadway bypassing Nelsonville. Seven local roads would be bridged. Costs of construction, rights-of-way acquisition, and mine mitigation are estimated at $111.0 million, $5.4 million, and 37.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would increase roadway capacity significantly and enhance traffic flow by bypassing Nelsonville. Through traffic would be removed from Nelsonville, enhancing community cohesion and safety. Regional traffic movements would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of rights-of-way would displace 48 residences, three businesses, 10.5 acres of farmland, 57 acres of 100-year floodplain, 707 acres of forested land, nearly 13 acres of wetlands, and land and vegetation within the Wayne National Forest, and the alignment would impact 37,381 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channel. The preferred alternative would also cause more substantial forest habitat fragmentation. One off-road vehicle trail within the national forest would be affected. Indiana bat, a federally protected species, would be significantly impacted, and another protected species cerulean warbler would suffer moderate impacts; all other impacts to protected species would be low or nonexistent. Access to four oil and gas wells would be eliminated. Traffic-generated noise levels in the vicinity of 51 sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards. Construction workers would encounter one hazardous waste materials site during project implementation. 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: 040343, 476 pages and maps, July 20, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Ohio KW - Wayne National Forest 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/36370526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+33+NELSONVILLE+BYPASS%2C+CITY+OF+NELSONVILLE%2C+HOCKING+AND+ATHENS+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=US+33+NELSONVILLE+BYPASS%2C+CITY+OF+NELSONVILLE%2C+HOCKING+AND+ATHENS+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 210 MULTI-MODAL STUDY, I-95/I-495 TO MD 228,PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36435026; 10881 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 10-mile segment of Maryland Route 210 (MD 210), also known as Indian Head Highway, in Prince Georges County, Maryland is proposed. The study corridor extends from Interstate 95 /Interstate 495 (I-95/I-495), also known as the Capital Beltway, to MD 228. The six-lane, divided arterial connects the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area at its northern terminus with the town of Indian Head in Charles County, approximately 20 miles south of the Prince Georges County/Washington line. The highway serves as a major route connecting I-95/I-495, the District of Columbia, and Virginia with southern Prince Georges County and Charles County. Eleven signalized intersections control intersections along the corridor. Peak hour delays and congestion have become particularly extreme at the signalized intersections. Traffic volumes are expected to increase steadily through the year 2020, the design year for the proposed project. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 5A Modified, which is the preferred alternative, would provide intersection improvements and auxiliary lands to support intersection improvements. Alternative 5B would widen MF 210 to provide reversible, barrier-separated median high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. Alternative 5C would widen MD 210 to provide concurrent flow HOV lanes. Intersection improvements being considered in conjuction with each action alternative would range from at-gradening to grade-separated interchange construction. Two options are considered for each action alternative. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $233.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve traffic operations and safety conditions along the affected section of MD 210. Local and regional connections would improve substantially, particularly for Prince Georges County commuters traveling to and from the District of Columbia and Virginia. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative, totaling 165.1 acres, would displace six to 15 residences, 13 businesses, and one church. Land would be taken from 96 residential properties, 40 commercial properties, and one parks/recreational area. One historic site would be affected. Acreage to be taken would include 126.7 acres of residential land, 34 acres of commercial property, one acre of parkland, and 0.2 acre of historically significant land. Construction activities would affect 9,140 linear feet along 13 streams, 3.4 acres of floodplain, 1.3 acres of wetlands, and 58.2 acres of woodland. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 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 01-0324D, Volume 25, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040331, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, July 15, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MD-EIS-01-01-F KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36435026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+210+MULTI-MODAL+STUDY%2C+I-95%2FI-495+TO+MD+228%2CPRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+210+MULTI-MODAL+STUDY%2C+I-95%2FI-495+TO+MD+228%2CPRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. AN - 36369740; 10885-040335_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan in the El Rio Antiguo area of the Rillito River corridor in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The river flows 7.2-miles east to west across the northern boundary of the city of Tuscon from the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash to the Santa Cruz River. The 0.25- to 1.0-mile study corridor, which extends 4.8 miles and encompasses 1,066 acres, consists of the portion of the river extending from Crayford Road at the upstream end to Campbell Avenue. Although flood damages have occurred along the study corridor, the primary problem consists of severe degradation and loss of riparian habitat. Wast once flowed perennially, supporting substantial cottonwood and willow stands as well as and mesquite. Increasing appropriate of surface water and groundwater to support the expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the river from a regime characterized by perennial surface and subsurface flows to a dry wash with stabilized banks that flow only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result, stands of native riparian habitat are rare within the study corridor. Invasive plant species have also become a problem. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The preliminarily recommended plan would provide for a set of terraces in the area known as the Bend; planting of cottonwood/willow, mesquite, shrub, and grass vegetation in the channel, at tributary mouths, and in water harvesting basins on the tributaries; installation of a culvert and pipeline from upstream to allow water to flow behind the soil cement in two-year and higher flow events to provide water to riparian plant communities along the north bank of the upstream portion of the corridor; creation of a high- and low-flow channel to support a mesquite community and connect the Finger Rock Wash to the Rillito River; provision of water harvesting basins at each upstream tributary mouth; and development of a distribution system for effluent-supporting vegetation. Ancillary recreational features would include decomposed granite multipurpose tails, a pedestrian bridge, parking, and trail links. First cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $63.8 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The overall benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.56. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would restore riparian vegetative communities within the river corridor to a more natural state; increase the acreage of functional seasonal wetland habitat; increase habitat diversity by providing a mix of habitats within the corridor; provide incidental flood control through ecosystem restoration to the extent that it does not impact the restoration objective; and increase recreational and environmental education opportunities within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor short-term impacts would result from removal of existing soil cement banks and grading and construction of project features. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0187D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040335, 441 pages and maps, July 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Rillito River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369740?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&rft.title=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&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 - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 210 MULTI-MODAL STUDY, I-95/I-495 TO MD 228,PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MD 210 MULTI-MODAL STUDY, I-95/I-495 TO MD 228,PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36363061; 10881-040331_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 10-mile segment of Maryland Route 210 (MD 210), also known as Indian Head Highway, in Prince Georges County, Maryland is proposed. The study corridor extends from Interstate 95 /Interstate 495 (I-95/I-495), also known as the Capital Beltway, to MD 228. The six-lane, divided arterial connects the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area at its northern terminus with the town of Indian Head in Charles County, approximately 20 miles south of the Prince Georges County/Washington line. The highway serves as a major route connecting I-95/I-495, the District of Columbia, and Virginia with southern Prince Georges County and Charles County. Eleven signalized intersections control intersections along the corridor. Peak hour delays and congestion have become particularly extreme at the signalized intersections. Traffic volumes are expected to increase steadily through the year 2020, the design year for the proposed project. Four alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 5A Modified, which is the preferred alternative, would provide intersection improvements and auxiliary lands to support intersection improvements. Alternative 5B would widen MF 210 to provide reversible, barrier-separated median high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes. Alternative 5C would widen MD 210 to provide concurrent flow HOV lanes. Intersection improvements being considered in conjuction with each action alternative would range from at-gradening to grade-separated interchange construction. Two options are considered for each action alternative. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $233.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve traffic operations and safety conditions along the affected section of MD 210. Local and regional connections would improve substantially, particularly for Prince Georges County commuters traveling to and from the District of Columbia and Virginia. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative, totaling 165.1 acres, would displace six to 15 residences, 13 businesses, and one church. Land would be taken from 96 residential properties, 40 commercial properties, and one parks/recreational area. One historic site would be affected. Acreage to be taken would include 126.7 acres of residential land, 34 acres of commercial property, one acre of parkland, and 0.2 acre of historically significant land. Construction activities would affect 9,140 linear feet along 13 streams, 3.4 acres of floodplain, 1.3 acres of wetlands, and 58.2 acres of woodland. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 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 01-0324D, Volume 25, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040331, Final EIS--721 pages and maps, July 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MD-EIS-01-01-F KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks 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/36363061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+210+MULTI-MODAL+STUDY%2C+I-95%2FI-495+TO+MD+228%2CPRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+210+MULTI-MODAL+STUDY%2C+I-95%2FI-495+TO+MD+228%2CPRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36439576; 10873 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36439576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20061114//040323/040323_0010.txt of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36382536; 10873-040323_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20061114//040323/040323_0010.txt KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36382536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36382423; 10873-040323_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36382423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378837; 10873-040323_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36378837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378833; 10873-040323_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36378833?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378745; 10873-040323_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36378745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378434; 10873-040323_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36378434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378433; 10873-040323_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36378433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378372; 10873-040323_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36378372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36378367; 10873-040323_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36378367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36371404; 10873-040323_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36371404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - MATILIJA DAM ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36370082; 10873-040323_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan at Matilija Dam in Ventura County, California is proposed. The project would involve removal of both the dam and the accumulated sediment. Matilija Dam is a concrete arch structure located approximately 16 miles from the Pacific Ocean and just over 0.5 mile from the confluence of the creek with the Ventura River. Matilija Creek and North Fork Matilija Creek join approximately 15.5 miles from the coast to create the Venture River, which has a drainage area of approximately 226 square miles. The dam was completed in 1948 to provide flood control and water supply for adjacent areas. Over time, sediment accumulated behind the dam, diminishing the flood control and water supply storage capacity of the reservoir. The dam blocks the migration of steelhead trout, a federally listed endangered species, and inhibits sediment transport, a fundamental mechanism for beach replenishment. Downstream beaches have narrowed measurably since construction of the dam, which has blocked 6.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Eight alternatives, including a number of subalternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred action (Alternative 4b) would involve full dam removal and measures to improve short-term sediment transport. Under this alternative, a channel would be excavated through the sediments upstream of the dam. Sediments would be allowed to erode naturally, but at a rate controlled in order to minimize negative downstream impacts. The entire concrete dam structure above the original stream bed would be removed. The plan would require three years to complete, including slurry of the reservoir area, dam removal, channel excavation, placement of riprap stone protection, and revegetation of the affected areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Removal of the dam would eliminate a barrier to fish passage on Matilija Creek and facilitate the migration, spawning, and rearing the endangered southern steelhead trout. Removal or reconfiguration of the accumulated sediment would improve the Matilija Creek flow regime and ultimately restore the creek to a more natural streambed configuration. Restoration of the sediment transport regime would help restore beach and estuary ecology downstream of the dam. The scenic quality of the Matilija Canyon would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Unknown soil or groundwater contamination could be encountered during the project. Flood hazards downstream of the dam would increase, and the project could result in lateral erosion and streambed scour or long-term aggradataion/degradation resulting in damage to private property and infrastructure. Lacustrine, riverine, and palustrine habitats at the damsite would be displaced, and downstream riparian habitats associated with downstream flood control improvements would occur. The necessity to construct floodwalls and levees would result in the obstruction of views in some areas. Certain businesses, including Matilija Hot Springs, and 11 residences would be displaced, as would recreational facilities associated with the reservoir. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040323, Draft EIS--698 pages, Main Report--161 pages, Main Report Appendices--149 pages; Appendix D--487 pages, July 9, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bank Protection KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Control KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Matilija Creek KW - Ventura River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, 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/36370082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MATILIJA+DAM+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+VENTURA+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; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 9, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY. AN - 36436975; 11262 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a coastal ecosystem restoration plan along the coast of Louisiana is proposed. The study area, which includes the entire coast of Louisiana, consists of two wetland-dominated ecosystems, namely, the Deltaic Plain of the Mississippi River and the closely linked Chenier Plain, both of which are influenced by the Mississippi River. The loss of the state's coastal wetlands has been ongoing since at least the early 1900s, with commensurate deleterious effects on the ecosystem and potential future negative impacts to the national and regional economies. There have been several separate investigations of the problem and a number of projects implemented over the last 20 to 30 years to provide localized remedies. The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Program is an ongoing operation comprised of relatively small projects to provide for partial restoration of the coastal ecosystem. Given the magnitude of coastal land losses and ecosystem degradation, it has become apparent that a systematic approach involving larger projects to restore natural processes working in concert with smaller projects will be required to deal with a problem of such large proportions. Restoration strategies presented in the 1998 report entitled "Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana", which evolved into the Louisiana Coastal Area Reconnaissance Report, formed the basis for this broader effort under the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study. The recommended plan would five near-term critical ecosystem restoration features for which construction would begin within five to 10 years; an authorization of a science and technology program to integrate ecosystem science and engineering approaches to restoration; implementation of science and technology demonstration projects to address major scientific or technological uncertainties and develop a monitoring and assessment plan to ensure that the demonstration projects would be effective; authorization of beneficial uses of dredged material, including navigational waterway improvement project uses; modifications to existing structures and/or operation and management plans for structures; recommendation of near-term critical restoration features for legislative authorization and implementation; and incorporation of large-scale and long-term concepts based on detailed studies. Specific projects would include marsh restoration and/or creation, land bridge restoration, pipeline canal restoration, erosion control, barrier island restoration, navigational improvements, shoreline restoration, operation of the Houma Canal Lock, diversion structures, and various hydrodynamic, freshwater management and allocation, and estuarine restoration studies. First cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.96 billion; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $7.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The restoration program would reverse the current trend of degradation of the coastal ecosystem. The plan would maximize the use of restoration strategies that reintroduce historical flows of river water, nutrients, and sediments to coastal wetlands and that maintain the structural integrity of the coastal ecosystem. Projects implemented under the plan would make significant progress toward achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that could support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana, thereby contributing to the economy and wellbeing of the nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Public concerns have been expressed over the use of comprehensive, long-term restoration efforts versus near-term restoration efforts; the need for additional studies prior to implementing corrective projects; the expense of restoration efforts due to oyster lease requirements; loss of salinity due to water diversion efforts; impediments to navigation due to the rerouting of portions of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers; and the protection of real property rights. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 040313, Main Report--246 pages, Draft EIS--517 pages, July 7, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY. AN - 36367689; 11262-040313_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a coastal ecosystem restoration plan along the coast of Louisiana is proposed. The study area, which includes the entire coast of Louisiana, consists of two wetland-dominated ecosystems, namely, the Deltaic Plain of the Mississippi River and the closely linked Chenier Plain, both of which are influenced by the Mississippi River. The loss of the state's coastal wetlands has been ongoing since at least the early 1900s, with commensurate deleterious effects on the ecosystem and potential future negative impacts to the national and regional economies. There have been several separate investigations of the problem and a number of projects implemented over the last 20 to 30 years to provide localized remedies. The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Program is an ongoing operation comprised of relatively small projects to provide for partial restoration of the coastal ecosystem. Given the magnitude of coastal land losses and ecosystem degradation, it has become apparent that a systematic approach involving larger projects to restore natural processes working in concert with smaller projects will be required to deal with a problem of such large proportions. Restoration strategies presented in the 1998 report entitled "Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana", which evolved into the Louisiana Coastal Area Reconnaissance Report, formed the basis for this broader effort under the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study. The recommended plan would five near-term critical ecosystem restoration features for which construction would begin within five to 10 years; an authorization of a science and technology program to integrate ecosystem science and engineering approaches to restoration; implementation of science and technology demonstration projects to address major scientific or technological uncertainties and develop a monitoring and assessment plan to ensure that the demonstration projects would be effective; authorization of beneficial uses of dredged material, including navigational waterway improvement project uses; modifications to existing structures and/or operation and management plans for structures; recommendation of near-term critical restoration features for legislative authorization and implementation; and incorporation of large-scale and long-term concepts based on detailed studies. Specific projects would include marsh restoration and/or creation, land bridge restoration, pipeline canal restoration, erosion control, barrier island restoration, navigational improvements, shoreline restoration, operation of the Houma Canal Lock, diversion structures, and various hydrodynamic, freshwater management and allocation, and estuarine restoration studies. First cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.96 billion; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $7.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The restoration program would reverse the current trend of degradation of the coastal ecosystem. The plan would maximize the use of restoration strategies that reintroduce historical flows of river water, nutrients, and sediments to coastal wetlands and that maintain the structural integrity of the coastal ecosystem. Projects implemented under the plan would make significant progress toward achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that could support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana, thereby contributing to the economy and wellbeing of the nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Public concerns have been expressed over the use of comprehensive, long-term restoration efforts versus near-term restoration efforts; the need for additional studies prior to implementing corrective projects; the expense of restoration efforts due to oyster lease requirements; loss of salinity due to water diversion efforts; impediments to navigation due to the rerouting of portions of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers; and the protection of real property rights. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 040313, Main Report--246 pages, Draft EIS--517 pages, July 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY. AN - 36362759; 11262-040313_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a coastal ecosystem restoration plan along the coast of Louisiana is proposed. The study area, which includes the entire coast of Louisiana, consists of two wetland-dominated ecosystems, namely, the Deltaic Plain of the Mississippi River and the closely linked Chenier Plain, both of which are influenced by the Mississippi River. The loss of the state's coastal wetlands has been ongoing since at least the early 1900s, with commensurate deleterious effects on the ecosystem and potential future negative impacts to the national and regional economies. There have been several separate investigations of the problem and a number of projects implemented over the last 20 to 30 years to provide localized remedies. The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act Program is an ongoing operation comprised of relatively small projects to provide for partial restoration of the coastal ecosystem. Given the magnitude of coastal land losses and ecosystem degradation, it has become apparent that a systematic approach involving larger projects to restore natural processes working in concert with smaller projects will be required to deal with a problem of such large proportions. Restoration strategies presented in the 1998 report entitled "Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana", which evolved into the Louisiana Coastal Area Reconnaissance Report, formed the basis for this broader effort under the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration Study. The recommended plan would five near-term critical ecosystem restoration features for which construction would begin within five to 10 years; an authorization of a science and technology program to integrate ecosystem science and engineering approaches to restoration; implementation of science and technology demonstration projects to address major scientific or technological uncertainties and develop a monitoring and assessment plan to ensure that the demonstration projects would be effective; authorization of beneficial uses of dredged material, including navigational waterway improvement project uses; modifications to existing structures and/or operation and management plans for structures; recommendation of near-term critical restoration features for legislative authorization and implementation; and incorporation of large-scale and long-term concepts based on detailed studies. Specific projects would include marsh restoration and/or creation, land bridge restoration, pipeline canal restoration, erosion control, barrier island restoration, navigational improvements, shoreline restoration, operation of the Houma Canal Lock, diversion structures, and various hydrodynamic, freshwater management and allocation, and estuarine restoration studies. First cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.96 billion; annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $7.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The restoration program would reverse the current trend of degradation of the coastal ecosystem. The plan would maximize the use of restoration strategies that reintroduce historical flows of river water, nutrients, and sediments to coastal wetlands and that maintain the structural integrity of the coastal ecosystem. Projects implemented under the plan would make significant progress toward achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that could support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana, thereby contributing to the economy and wellbeing of the nation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Public concerns have been expressed over the use of comprehensive, long-term restoration efforts versus near-term restoration efforts; the need for additional studies prior to implementing corrective projects; the expense of restoration efforts due to oyster lease requirements; loss of salinity due to water diversion efforts; impediments to navigation due to the rerouting of portions of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers; and the protection of real property rights. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-646) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 040313, Main Report--246 pages, Draft EIS--517 pages, July 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Estuaries KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Water Resources Management KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY.&rft.title=LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 97 - BROOKEVILLE PROJECT FROM SOUTH OF GOLD MINE ROAD TO NORTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MD 97 - BROOKEVILLE PROJECT FROM SOUTH OF GOLD MINE ROAD TO NORTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 36369504; 10867-040317_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Maryland Route 97 (MD 97) from south of Gold Mine Road to north of proposed Bordly Drive in Montgomery County, Maryland is proposed. The project study area extends approximately two miles along the MD 97 (Georgia Avenue) corridor from south of Gold Mine Road to north of Holiday Drive. MD 97 functions as a major north-south commuter route between employment areas in and around the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area, including Washington, D.C. and residential communities such as Brookeville in northern Montgomery County and other communities in Howard and Carroll counties. In Brookeville, MD 97 has a 90-degree bend in its horizontal alignment, which is rendered more dangerous by a steep vertical grade. The increasing volumes of peak hour traffic, combined with these substandard geometrics, contribute to the need to improve the overall operational characteristics of MD 97 through Brookeville. Four new alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives include one alignment lying east of Brookeville and three alignments west of the town. At-grade and grade-separated designs were developed for two of the western alignments in an attempt to mitigate environmental versus community impacts. All alignment alternatives would provide for a two-lane, undivided, limited access, highway extending from MD 108 to Holiday Drive. Depending on the build alternative and design option selected, estimated costs of the project range from $12.2 million to $34.2 million. The preferred alternative (Alternative 7 Modified) would extend west of Brookeville. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $12.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove the continually increasing traffic volumes Brookeville, improve traffic operations and safety on existing MD 97, and preserve the historic character of the town. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would affect a total of 11 properties. In addition, the project would affect 6.65 acres of recreational land, 2.24 acres of historic district property, 4.84 acres of prime farmland, 1.79 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 0.1 3 acre of wetlands, 1,169.2 linear feet of stream, 3.34 acres of floodplain land, and 10.47 acres of forested land. One alternative would not be compatible with the comprehensive land use management plan for the area. One hazardous waste site would be encountered during construction. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 10 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). [REF]For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0457D, Volume 25, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040317, 467 pages and maps, July 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MD-EIS-01-02-F KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+97+-+BROOKEVILLE+PROJECT+FROM+SOUTH+OF+GOLD+MINE+ROAD+TO+NORTH+OF+HOLIDAY+DRIVE%2C+MONTGOMERY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+97+-+BROOKEVILLE+PROJECT+FROM+SOUTH+OF+GOLD+MINE+ROAD+TO+NORTH+OF+HOLIDAY+DRIVE%2C+MONTGOMERY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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: July 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 97 - BROOKEVILLE PROJECT FROM SOUTH OF GOLD MINE ROAD TO NORTH OF HOLIDAY DRIVE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 16361530; 10867 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Maryland Route 97 (MD 97) from south of Gold Mine Road to north of proposed Bordly Drive in Montgomery County, Maryland is proposed. The project study area extends approximately two miles along the MD 97 (Georgia Avenue) corridor from south of Gold Mine Road to north of Holiday Drive. MD 97 functions as a major north-south commuter route between employment areas in and around the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan area, including Washington, D.C. and residential communities such as Brookeville in northern Montgomery County and other communities in Howard and Carroll counties. In Brookeville, MD 97 has a 90-degree bend in its horizontal alignment, which is rendered more dangerous by a steep vertical grade. The increasing volumes of peak hour traffic, combined with these substandard geometrics, contribute to the need to improve the overall operational characteristics of MD 97 through Brookeville. Four new alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives include one alignment lying east of Brookeville and three alignments west of the town. At-grade and grade-separated designs were developed for two of the western alignments in an attempt to mitigate environmental versus community impacts. All alignment alternatives would provide for a two-lane, undivided, limited access, highway extending from MD 108 to Holiday Drive. Depending on the build alternative and design option selected, estimated costs of the project range from $12.2 million to $34.2 million. The preferred alternative (Alternative 7 Modified) would extend west of Brookeville. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $12.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would remove the continually increasing traffic volumes Brookeville, improve traffic operations and safety on existing MD 97, and preserve the historic character of the town. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would affect a total of 11 properties. In addition, the project would affect 6.65 acres of recreational land, 2.24 acres of historic district property, 4.84 acres of prime farmland, 1.79 acres of farmland of statewide importance, 0.1 3 acre of wetlands, 1,169.2 linear feet of stream, 3.34 acres of floodplain land, and 10.47 acres of forested land. One alternative would not be compatible with the comprehensive land use management plan for the area. One hazardous waste site would be encountered during construction. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 10 sensitive receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). [REF]For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 01-0457D, Volume 25, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040317, 467 pages and maps, July 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MD-EIS-01-02-F KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16361530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+97+-+BROOKEVILLE+PROJECT+FROM+SOUTH+OF+GOLD+MINE+ROAD+TO+NORTH+OF+HOLIDAY+DRIVE%2C+MONTGOMERY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+97+-+BROOKEVILLE+PROJECT+FROM+SOUTH+OF+GOLD+MINE+ROAD+TO+NORTH+OF+HOLIDAY+DRIVE%2C+MONTGOMERY+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&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: July 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of ecologically relevant bioassays for a lotic system impacted by a coal-mine effluent, using Isonychia. AN - 72025554; 15195819 AB - Many studies investigating the ecotoxicological impacts of industrial effluents on fresh-water biota utilize standardized test species such as the daphnids, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna, and the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. Such species may not be the most predictive or ecologically relevant gauges of the responses of instream benthic macroinvertebrates to certain stressors, such as total dissolved solids. An indigenous species approach should be adopted, using a sensitive benthic collector-filterer following development of practical laboratory bioassays. In the Leading Creek Watershed (southeast Ohio), an aggregated approximately 99% reduction in mean mayfly abundance for all impacted sites was observed below a coal-mine effluent with mean specific conductivity (SC) of 8,109 (7,750-8,750) microS cm(-1). The mayfly, Isonychia, was exposed for 7-days to a simulation of this effluent, in lotic microcosms. Based on lowest observable adverse effect concentrations, Isonychia survival was a more sensitive endpoint to SC (1,562 microS cm(-1)) than were 7-day C. dubia survival and fecundity (3,730 microS cm(-1)). Isonychia molting, a potentially more sensitive endpoint, was also examined. Using traditional test species to assess discharges to surface water alone may not adequately protect benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in systems impaired by discharges high in SC. JF - Environmental monitoring and assessment AU - Kennedy, A J AU - Cherry, D S AU - Currie, R J AD - Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. alan.j.kennedy@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - July 2004 SP - 37 EP - 55 VL - 95 IS - 1-3 SN - 0167-6369, 0167-6369 KW - Metals KW - 0 KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - Index Medicus KW - United States KW - Animals KW - Ohio KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- toxicity KW - Biological Assay KW - Coal Mining KW - Insects KW - Environmental Monitoring -- methods KW - Metals -- toxicity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/72025554?accountid=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+monitoring+and+assessment&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+ecologically+relevant+bioassays+for+a+lotic+system+impacted+by+a+coal-mine+effluent%2C+using+Isonychia.&rft.au=Kennedy%2C+A+J%3BCherry%2C+D+S%3BCurrie%2C+R+J&rft.aulast=Kennedy&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=37&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+monitoring+and+assessment&rft.issn=01676369&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2004-08-06 N1 - Date created - 2004-06-15 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Understanding the physical and environmental consequences of dredged material disposal: history in New England and current perspectives. AN - 66682666; 15234878 AB - Thirty-five years of research in New England indicates that ocean disposal of dredged material has minimal environmental impacts when carefully managed. This paper summarizes research efforts and resulting conclusions by the US Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, beginning with the Scientific Report Series and continuing with the Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS). Using a tiered approach to monitoring and a wide range of tools, the DAMOS program has monitored short- and long-term physical and biological effects of disposal at designated disposal sites throughout New England waters. The DAMOS program has also helped develop new techniques for safe ocean disposal of contaminated sediments, including capping and confined aquatic disposal (CAD) cells. Monitoring conducted at many sites in New England and around the world has shown that impacts are typically near-field and short-term. Findings such as these need to be disseminated to the general public, whose perception of dredged material disposal is generally negative and is not strongly rooted in current science. JF - Marine pollution bulletin AU - Fredette, T J AU - French, G T AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, 696 Virginia Rd., Concord, MA 01742, USA. thomas.j.fredette@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - July 2004 SP - 93 EP - 102 VL - 49 IS - 1-2 SN - 0025-326X, 0025-326X KW - Index Medicus KW - Environmental Monitoring KW - New England KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Risk Assessment KW - Geologic Sediments -- chemistry KW - Engineering KW - Refuse Disposal UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66682666?accountid=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=Understanding+the+physical+and+environmental+consequences+of+dredged+material+disposal%3A+history+in+New+England+and+current+perspectives.&rft.au=Fredette%2C+T+J%3BFrench%2C+G+T&rft.aulast=Fredette&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=93&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 - 2004-11-09 N1 - Date created - 2004-07-05 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Triaxial-in-a-plane soil stress gage for vehicle mobility applications AN - 51797335; 2004-074394 JF - Journal of Terramechanics AU - Peekna, A AU - Pickens, J L AU - Priddy, J D AU - Horner, D A A2 - Shoop, Sally A. Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - July 2004 SP - 139 EP - 149 PB - Pergamon, Oxford-New York VL - 41 IS - 2-3 SN - 0022-4898, 0022-4898 KW - soil mechanics KW - stress KW - vehicles KW - transportation KW - triaxial tests KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51797335?accountid=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+Terramechanics&rft.atitle=Triaxial-in-a-plane+soil+stress+gage+for+vehicle+mobility+applications&rft.au=Peekna%2C+A%3BPickens%2C+J+L%3BPriddy%2C+J+D%3BHorner%2C+D+A&rft.aulast=Peekna&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2-3&rft.spage=139&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Terramechanics&rft.issn=00224898&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jterra.2004.02.003 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00224898 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 14th international conference of the ISTVS N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - JTRMAF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - soil mechanics; stress; transportation; triaxial tests; vehicles DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2004.02.003 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Computational modeling of sediment transport processes AN - 51770857; 2005-004387 JF - Journal of Hydraulic Engineering AU - Barkdoll, Brian D AU - Duan, Jennifer G AU - Fan, Shou-shan AU - Klumpp, Cassie C AU - McAnnally, Bill AU - Papanicolaou, Thanos AU - Scott, Steve AU - Wang, Sam S Y AU - Wu, Weiming AU - Ying, Xinya Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - July 2004 SP - 597 EP - 598 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY VL - 130 IS - 7 SN - 0733-9429, 0733-9429 KW - processes KW - experimental studies KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - sedimentation KW - data processing KW - prediction KW - current research KW - physical models KW - observations KW - laboratory studies KW - digital simulation KW - accuracy KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51770857?accountid=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+Hydraulic+Engineering&rft.atitle=Computational+modeling+of+sediment+transport+processes&rft.au=Barkdoll%2C+Brian+D%3BDuan%2C+Jennifer+G%3BFan%2C+Shou-shan%3BKlumpp%2C+Cassie+C%3BMcAnnally%2C+Bill%3BPapanicolaou%2C+Thanos%3BScott%2C+Steve%3BWang%2C+Sam+S+Y%3BWu%2C+Weiming%3BYing%2C+Xinya&rft.aulast=Barkdoll&rft.aufirst=Brian&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=597&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hydraulic+Engineering&rft.issn=07339429&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/hyo/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - SuppNotes - Report by the ASCE Task Committe of Computational Modeling of Sediment Transport Processes N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - JHEND8 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accuracy; current research; data processing; digital simulation; experimental studies; laboratory studies; numerical models; observations; physical models; prediction; processes; sediment transport; sedimentation ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Bench- and field-scale evaluation of chromium and cadmium extraction by electrokinetics AN - 19674948; 5923807 AB - The results of bench-scale laboratory tests and in situ, pilot-scale demonstration of electrokinetic extraction of chromium and cadmium from contaminated soil are presented. The laboratory tests were conducted using 10 cm long samples under current density of 5 A/m super(2) for 1200 h. Tests were conducted with and without citric acid amendment at the cathode. The results showed that citric acid improved extraction, especially in the sections near the cathode. However, processing was not enough to result in complete cleanup. The field demo was conducted at the Naval Air Weapon Station (NAWS), Point Mugu, California. Three cathodes were centered between six anodes. The anode-cathode spacing was 4.45 m (15 ft). Constant voltage of 60 V (~13 V/m) was applied for 20 days and then was reduced to 45 V (10 V/m) for 6 months. Citric acid was used to maintain the cathode pH at 4. After 6 months of treatment, 78% of the soil volume has been cleared of chromium or treated to below natural background levels. The results also indicated that 70% of the soil between the electrodes had been cleared of cadmium contamination. A comparison between the bench-scale and field demo showed that the field process was more effective than the lab tests. This indicated that small sample size will induce a negative effect on the efficiency of the process due to an increased impact of the boundaries on the overall process. JF - Journal of Hazardous Materials AU - Gent, D B AU - Bricka, R M AU - Alshawabkeh, AN AU - Larson, S L AU - Fabian, G AU - Granade, S AD - Environmental Laboratory, US ACE Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA, aalsha@coe.neu.edu Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - Jul 2004 SP - 53 EP - 62 PB - Elsevier Science B.V., P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl/] VL - 110 IS - 1-3 SN - 0304-3894, 0304-3894 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Electrokinetics KW - Soil Remediation KW - Heavy metals KW - Electroosmosis KW - Ion migration KW - Soil remediation KW - Cathodes KW - Pollutant removal KW - Chromium KW - Contamination KW - Soil contamination KW - Soil KW - Soil pollution KW - Electrodes KW - Background levels KW - Anodes KW - Boundaries KW - Cadmium KW - USA, California KW - Military KW - Electrochemistry KW - pH effects KW - Citric acid KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - X 24360:Metals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19674948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hazardous+Materials&rft.atitle=Bench-+and+field-scale+evaluation+of+chromium+and+cadmium+extraction+by+electrokinetics&rft.au=Gent%2C+D+B%3BBricka%2C+R+M%3BAlshawabkeh%2C+AN%3BLarson%2C+S+L%3BFabian%2C+G%3BGranade%2C+S&rft.aulast=Gent&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=110&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=53&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hazardous+Materials&rft.issn=03043894&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jhazmat.2004.02.036 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Soil pollution; Soil; Cathodes; Contamination; Chromium; Anodes; Background levels; Electrodes; Boundaries; Cadmium; pH effects; Citric acid; Soil remediation; Pollutant removal; Heavy metals; Soil contamination; Electrochemistry; Military; USA, California DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.02.036 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Flood Event Assessment Tool (FEAT) User's Manual and Technical Documentation AN - 19445274; 7189979 AB - The Flood Event Assessment Tool (FEAT) is a prototype geospatial modeling tool that uses river and stream gage data, landscape digital elevation models (DEMs), main and secondary channel centerlines or cross sections to generate a geospatial-based flood surface. The primary objective in developing FEAT was to improve the accuracy and decrease the time and effort required to determine dynamic flood surfaces and provide information for decision-making. This guide provides an overview of FEAT, information about the algorithms, software and hardware requirements, installation procedures and operation, user input requirements, and examples of model output products. JF - Special Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory AU - Ballard, JR Jr AU - Kress, M R Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - July 2004 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Documentation KW - Prototypes KW - Laboratories KW - Algorithms KW - Model Studies KW - Installation KW - Channels KW - Assessments KW - Floods KW - Elevation KW - Research KW - Hydrologic Data KW - Manuals KW - Topography KW - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers KW - M2 551.5:General (551.5) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19445274?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=Ballard%2C+JR+Jr%3BKress%2C+M+R&rft.aulast=Ballard&rft.aufirst=JR&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Flood+Event+Assessment+Tool+%28FEAT%29+User%27s+Manual+and+Technical+Documentation&rft.title=Flood+Event+Assessment+Tool+%28FEAT%29+User%27s+Manual+and+Technical+Documentation&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 - Evaluation of Thorium-232 Distribution at Kirtland Air Force Base, Defense Nuclear Weapons School, Training Site 4 AN - 19444178; 7170606 AB - Ranges used at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM, to train personnel in the identification of areas containing radioactive contamination provide an excellent test case for environmentally responsible training. These training sites have restricted access, and operations are conducted in compliance with a current Nuclear Regulatory Commission license. In order for the training to be realistic, the ranges have been amended with thorium oxide to simulate a plutonium spill. The environmental concern from the operation of these ranges is thorium migration through three mechanisms: wind, surface water, and vertical migration to groundwater. Field measurements have mapped thorium-232 distribution at the site, and led to laboratory experiments to determine mobility mechanisms. Column leaching experiments have shown that vertical migration is minimal, in agreement with field results. Soil extraction experiments indicate that thorium desorption from soil is colloidal. Additionally, electrokinetic experiments suggest thorium migration as a negative complex, possibly associated with organic matter. Soil stabilization techniques are being tested to determine an optimum method for reducing thorium mobility. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Larson, S L AU - Ballard, J H AU - Bednar, A J AU - Shettlemore, M G AU - Morgan, J C AU - Fields, M P AU - Christodoulatos, C AU - Manis, R Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - July 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Leaching KW - Plutonium KW - Thorium KW - Mobility KW - Laboratory testing KW - Training KW - Surface water KW - Organic matter KW - Compliance KW - Nuclear weapons KW - USA, New Mexico, Albuquerque KW - Soil KW - Military KW - P 8000:RADIATION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444178?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+L%3BBallard%2C+J+H%3BBednar%2C+A+J%3BShettlemore%2C+M+G%3BMorgan%2C+J+C%3BFields%2C+M+P%3BChristodoulatos%2C+C%3BManis%2C+R&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+Thorium-232+Distribution+at+Kirtland+Air+Force+Base%2C+Defense+Nuclear+Weapons+School%2C+Training+Site+4&rft.title=Evaluation+of+Thorium-232+Distribution+at+Kirtland+Air+Force+Base%2C+Defense+Nuclear+Weapons+School%2C+Training+Site+4&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 - Climate Forecasts in Flood Emergency Management AN - 19394984; 7157010 AB - Examples of using climate outlooks for emergency flood control measures illustrate their potential and shortcomings. JF - Water Resources Impact AU - Olsen, J R Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - Jul 2004 VL - 6 IS - 4 SN - 1522-3175, 1522-3175 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Flood control KW - Climates KW - Climate KW - Water resources KW - Freshwater KW - Water Resources Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood forecasting KW - Floods KW - Emergencies KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers KW - M2 551.509.1/.5:Forecasting (551.509.1/.5) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19394984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Resources+Impact&rft.atitle=Climate+Forecasts+in+Flood+Emergency+Management&rft.au=Olsen%2C+J+R&rft.aulast=Olsen&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Resources+Impact&rft.issn=15223175&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 - Flood control; Flood forecasting; Floods; Climate; Water resources; Emergencies; Flood Control; Climates; Water Resources Management; Freshwater ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Diffusive fluxes and equilibrium processes in relation to phosphorus dynamics in the Upper Mississippi River AN - 17227168; 6905990 AB - We examined total suspended solids (TSS) and phosphorus (P) dynamics in the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) above naturally impounded Lake Pepin between 1994 and 1996, with attention to P loadings which may be contributing to impaired water quality conditions. The Minnesota River, located 97 km upstream of Lake Pepin, accounted for most of the annual and summer TSS and total P load while the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant, located 80 km upstream of Lake Pepin, accounted for much of the annual soluble reactive P (SRP) loading to the UMR. Lake Pepin retained 80% and 13% of the TSS and total P load, respectively, during the summer period. However, the lake was a source of SRP during the same period, exporting up to 130% of the summer SRP load it received. Diffusive P flux from profundal sediments averaged 7.5 mg m super(-2) d super(-1) during the summer, accounting for 41% of the net SRP export from the lake. Recently deposited sediments in Lake Pepin (originating primarily from the Minnesota River) also exhibited a high equilibrium P concentration (EPC=0.155 mg l super(-1)) and linear adsorption coefficient (K sub(d)=1043 l kg super(-1)). Application of these P equilibrium characteristics to TSS loads entering the system resulted in a calculated potential P desorption flux from TSS of 2.0 mg m super(-2) d super(-1) during the summer. Potential P desorption flux to the system was driven by dilution of SRP concentrations in the Mississippi River below the EPC by SRP-deficient inflows of the St Croix River, located 16 km upstream of the lake. P desorption was, thus, an important additional internal P flux that is not commonly included in P budgets of riverine systems. Published in 2004 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. JF - River Research and Applications AU - James, William F AU - Barko, John W AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, PO Box 237, Spring Valley, Wisconsin 54767, USA, jameswl@svtel.net Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - July 2004 SP - 473 EP - 484 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Baffins Lane Chichester W. Sussex PO19 1UD UK, [mailto:customer@wiley.co.uk] VL - 20 IS - 4 SN - 1535-1459, 1535-1459 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - adsorption-desorption KW - diffusive sediment flux KW - equilibrium processes KW - Mississippi River KW - phosphorus KW - suspended solids KW - Phosphorus KW - Freshwater KW - Water quality KW - Lakes KW - Suspended Solids KW - Sedimentation KW - wastewater treatment plants KW - Rivers KW - Wastewater Facilities KW - USA, Minnesota, Pepin L. KW - Pollution Load KW - Suspended Load KW - Export KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Sediment-water interface KW - USA, Mississippi R. KW - Impaired Water Quality KW - Wastewater treatment KW - upstream KW - USA, Minnesota R. KW - Receiving Waters KW - Sediment transport KW - Suspended Sediments KW - Desorption KW - Suspended particulate matter KW - Dynamics KW - Sediments KW - Equilibrium KW - Adsorption KW - summer KW - Fluctuations KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - D 04070:Pollution KW - SW 3040:Wastewater treatment processes KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17227168?accountid=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=River+Research+and+Applications&rft.atitle=Diffusive+fluxes+and+equilibrium+processes+in+relation+to+phosphorus+dynamics+in+the+Upper+Mississippi+River&rft.au=James%2C+William+F%3BBarko%2C+John+W&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=473&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=River+Research+and+Applications&rft.issn=15351459&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Frra.761 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rivers; Sediment-water interface; Phosphorus; Sediment transport; Suspended particulate matter; Water quality; Sedimentation; Wastewater treatment; Lakes; Desorption; Adsorption; Sediments; upstream; summer; wastewater treatment plants; Wastewater Facilities; Suspended Sediments; Pollution Load; Suspended Load; Impaired Water Quality; Dynamics; Export; Equilibrium; Suspended Solids; Receiving Waters; Fluctuations; North America, Mississippi R.; USA, Minnesota R.; USA, Minnesota, Pepin L.; USA, Mississippi R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.761 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Leachate Dispersion in Aquifers under Disposal Facilities AN - 16177037; 5956018 AB - Contaminated dredged material is often placed in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) designed and operated to control environmental impacts of the disposed sediment. A CDF is a diked enclosure having structures that retain dredged material solids. When contaminated dredged material is placed in a CDF, contaminants may be mobilized to form leachate that may be transported to the site boundaries by seepage. The purpose of this research is to examine the components of steady-state leachate attenuation in aquifers and to develop a predictive screening tool. The main factors affecting leachate transport and dilution through the saturated zone of an aquifer are evaluated to develop a guidance procedure to assist in decision making regarding the use of leachate controls in the CDF. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys' MULTIMED model is used to develop predictive equations for the effects of recharge and lateral and vertical dispersion processes on centerline concentrations in the aquifer. The results show that the effects of these processes can be predicted independently. Relationships were developed to estimate the attenuation factor for each process. An equation for centerline leachate concentration using attenuation factors is developed to predict peak leachate exposure for decision making. JF - Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management AU - Schroeder, PR AU - Aziz, N M AD - CEERD-EP-E, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA, aziz@clemson.edu Y1 - 2004/07// PY - 2004 DA - Jul 2004 SP - 142 EP - 147 VL - 8 IS - 3 SN - 1090-025X, 1090-025X KW - Pollution Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Aquifers KW - Sediment pollution KW - Water Pollution Sources KW - Landfills KW - Waste Disposal KW - Groundwater Pollution KW - Water pollution KW - Dredging KW - Waste disposal KW - Leachates KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16177037?accountid=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=Practice+Periodical+of+Hazardous%2C+Toxic%2C+and+Radioactive+Waste+Management&rft.atitle=Leachate+Dispersion+in+Aquifers+under+Disposal+Facilities&rft.au=Schroeder%2C+PR%3BAziz%2C+N+M&rft.aulast=Schroeder&rft.aufirst=PR&rft.date=2004-07-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=142&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Practice+Periodical+of+Hazardous%2C+Toxic%2C+and+Radioactive+Waste+Management&rft.issn=1090025X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%291090-025X%282004%298%3A3%28142%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-12-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Aquifers; Sediment pollution; Landfills; Dredging; Waste disposal; Leachates; Water pollution; Water Pollution Sources; Waste Disposal; Groundwater Pollution DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X(2004)8:3(142) ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36439565; 10844 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 are considered in this draft EIS. 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 a 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 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one 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 17 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. 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: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains 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 - 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/36439565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-18&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 - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36378439; 10844-040292_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 are considered in this draft EIS. 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 a 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 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one 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 17 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. 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: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains 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 - 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/36378439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&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 - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36378305; 10844-040292_0003 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 are considered in this draft EIS. 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 a 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 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one 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 17 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. 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: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains 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 - 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/36378305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&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 - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36368900; 10844-040292_0004 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 are considered in this draft EIS. 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 a 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 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one 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 17 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. 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: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains 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 - 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/36368900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&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 - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - US 2, HAVRE TO FORT BELKNAP, HILL AND BLAINE COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36365429; 10844-040292_0002 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 are considered in this draft EIS. 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 a 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 31 bridge replacements. The estimated costs for the two-lane with passing lanes, four-lane undivided, and four-lane divided alternatives are $69.7 million, $94.5 million, and $106.8 million, respectively. Costs would exceed benefits by a ratio of two to one for a two-lane facility, with passing lanes and approximately, by a ratio of 2.9 to one 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 17 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. 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: 040292, Volume I--378 pages, Volume II--412 pages, June 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-04-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains 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 - 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/36365429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-18&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 - Draft. Preparation date: June 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, FROM STATE ROAD 56 TO EXIT 51 ON INTERSTATE 15, IRON COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36437432; 10840 AB - PURPOSE: The preservation of rights-of-way and the construction of new transportation corridor extending six miles from State Road (SR) 56 to the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort interchange (Exit 51) on Interstate 15 (I-15) in Iron County, Utah are proposed. The new transportation corridor would connect regional transportation systems and link rural residents with job centers. Existing roadways within the project area are either not developed, unimproved, or do not meet current design standards. While the existing traffic network satisfactorily accommodate current traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service, planned growth requires that an upgraded transportation network be effected. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Environmental impacts falling into 15 categories are discusses; key impacts are related to land use, cultural resources, wildlife resources, and traffic-generated noise levels. Alternative 2, the western build alternative, would begin at the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort (Exit 15) interchange and continue westward to approximately 5600 West, curve northward to 5700 West, follow 5700 West due north to intersect with DR 56, with a bend to the northwest so that the intersection with SR 56 is at a 90-degree angle. The 5.6-mile facility would consists of a two-lane roadway and an unpaved trail within a 100-foot rights-of-way. Alternative 3 follows 5500 West north and south. In all other respects it is identical to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would extend 5.7 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transportation corridor would improve the transportation network in accordance with the Iron County Transportation Master Plan, thereby supporting the mobility of goods and people and improving local circulation and access for residents and emergency service vehicles. The new facility would provide additional direct access to the I-15 industrial corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for alternatives 2 and 3 would be 59.6 and 65.299 acres, respectively; respective farmland displacements are 55.97 acres and 29.16 acres. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at three and seven residential locations, respectively. Stream realignment would occur on Shurtz Creek and the Shurtz Creek South Branch. Alternative 2 would also impact one wellhead. Either alternative could affect foraging resources for bald eagle and ferruginous hawks, and Alternative 2 would affect 5.76 acres of Utah prairie dog habitat and foraging sources for Swainson's hawks. Ten to 16 archeaological sites would be disturbed. The roadway would constitute an aesthetic intrusion in a rural area. JF - EPA number: 040288, 237 pages and maps, June 17, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRON+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+STATE+ROAD+56+TO+EXIT+51+ON+INTERSTATE+15%2C+IRON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=IRON+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+STATE+ROAD+56+TO+EXIT+51+ON+INTERSTATE+15%2C+IRON+COUNTY%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: June 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IRON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, FROM STATE ROAD 56 TO EXIT 51 ON INTERSTATE 15, IRON COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - IRON COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, FROM STATE ROAD 56 TO EXIT 51 ON INTERSTATE 15, IRON COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 36361983; 10840-040288_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The preservation of rights-of-way and the construction of new transportation corridor extending six miles from State Road (SR) 56 to the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort interchange (Exit 51) on Interstate 15 (I-15) in Iron County, Utah are proposed. The new transportation corridor would connect regional transportation systems and link rural residents with job centers. Existing roadways within the project area are either not developed, unimproved, or do not meet current design standards. While the existing traffic network satisfactorily accommodate current traffic volumes at acceptable levels of service, planned growth requires that an upgraded transportation network be effected. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Environmental impacts falling into 15 categories are discusses; key impacts are related to land use, cultural resources, wildlife resources, and traffic-generated noise levels. Alternative 2, the western build alternative, would begin at the North Kanarraville/Hamilton Fort (Exit 15) interchange and continue westward to approximately 5600 West, curve northward to 5700 West, follow 5700 West due north to intersect with DR 56, with a bend to the northwest so that the intersection with SR 56 is at a 90-degree angle. The 5.6-mile facility would consists of a two-lane roadway and an unpaved trail within a 100-foot rights-of-way. Alternative 3 follows 5500 West north and south. In all other respects it is identical to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would extend 5.7 miles. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transportation corridor would improve the transportation network in accordance with the Iron County Transportation Master Plan, thereby supporting the mobility of goods and people and improving local circulation and access for residents and emergency service vehicles. The new facility would provide additional direct access to the I-15 industrial corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for alternatives 2 and 3 would be 59.6 and 65.299 acres, respectively; respective farmland displacements are 55.97 acres and 29.16 acres. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards at three and seven residential locations, respectively. Stream realignment would occur on Shurtz Creek and the Shurtz Creek South Branch. Alternative 2 would also impact one wellhead. Either alternative could affect foraging resources for bald eagle and ferruginous hawks, and Alternative 2 would affect 5.76 acres of Utah prairie dog habitat and foraging sources for Swainson's hawks. Ten to 16 archeaological sites would be disturbed. The roadway would constitute an aesthetic intrusion in a rural area. JF - EPA number: 040288, 237 pages and maps, June 17, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IRON+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+STATE+ROAD+56+TO+EXIT+51+ON+INTERSTATE+15%2C+IRON+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=IRON+COUNTY+TRANSPORTATION+CORRIDOR%2C+FROM+STATE+ROAD+56+TO+EXIT+51+ON+INTERSTATE+15%2C+IRON+COUNTY%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: June 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, UNALASKA, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, UNALASKA, ALASKA. AN - 36361617; 10836-040284_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of harbor facilities in the Unalaska area of Alaska is proposed. Unalaska is in the Aleutian Island chain approximately 1,300 kilometers southwest of Anchorage. The city is the largest community and port in the Aleutian Islands. Although the city functions as a regional transportation center for fuel and other materials to many communities of western and northern coastal Alaska, its primary economic base is the North Pacific and Bering Sea fisheries. The deeep-water natural harbors of Unalaska do not offer adequate protection to enture that most Unalaska commercial fishing can be protected from damage if left unattended for extended periods. Rafting bessels at existing morrages causes damage to vessels sand docks and increased labor costs. As a consequence, many fishing vessels return to homeports or other harbors during extended fishery closures. This results in increased fuel costs, crew time, and other travel-related expenses. This situation could be ameliorated if commercial fishing vessels were provided with protected moorage in Unalaska between fishing periods. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts to biological resources, traditional human uses, and the availability of other, less environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed action. Three alternative harbor sites and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve the development of a harbor on the southwest short of Amaknak Island in n area locally known as Little South America. The harbor would be designed to moor 75 boats from 24 to 45 meters in overall length. The harbor would consists of a 181-meter fubblemound breakwater and two floating breakwaters totaling 398 meters in length to protect 5.6 hectares of mooring area at a depth of 5.5 meters below mean lower low water and a 1.2-hectare entrance and maneuvering area. A natural reef would support the rubblemound breakwater by reducing long-period waves from the south. Harbor development would take place over two years. Cost of harbor development is estimated at $23.7 million, and the benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.4. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The harbor would provide a safe haven for fishing vessels, as well as other vessels, year round, thereby allowing fishing vessels to remain in the Unalaska area during seasonal closures and operate their vessels more efficiently. Maintenance of the vessels year-round would also provide a boost to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The threatened Alaska breeding population of Steller's eiders would lose 10 hectares of winter foraging habitat and could be intermittently displaced brom an additional 30 hectares of foraging and resting habitat. The risk of collision with boats for this species would also be heightened. The same habitat provides habitat for ducks and seabirds. Seafood waste discharge and petroleum contamination from spills could impact water quality. Walleye pollock, pink salmon, and small Pacific cod would lose nearshore habitat along about 700 meters of shoreline that includes 1.85 hectares of nearshore bottom habitat and 0.7 hectare of adjacent intertidal habitat. Approximately 3.5 hectares of diverse and protective benthic habitat would be filled for staging purposes. The harbor would lie inside a national landmark and near both historic and pre-historic sites of importance, and harbor facilities would mar the landscape. The harbor would eliminate the possibility of rejuvenated subsistence collection of shellfish and other marine invertebrates in the immediate area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 040284, Draft EIS--237 pages, Appendices--338 pages, June 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Reefs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shellfish KW - Subsistence KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36361617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+UNALASKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+UNALASKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, UNALASKA, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, UNALASKA, ALASKA. AN - 36357397; 10836-040284_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of harbor facilities in the Unalaska area of Alaska is proposed. Unalaska is in the Aleutian Island chain approximately 1,300 kilometers southwest of Anchorage. The city is the largest community and port in the Aleutian Islands. Although the city functions as a regional transportation center for fuel and other materials to many communities of western and northern coastal Alaska, its primary economic base is the North Pacific and Bering Sea fisheries. The deeep-water natural harbors of Unalaska do not offer adequate protection to enture that most Unalaska commercial fishing can be protected from damage if left unattended for extended periods. Rafting bessels at existing morrages causes damage to vessels sand docks and increased labor costs. As a consequence, many fishing vessels return to homeports or other harbors during extended fishery closures. This results in increased fuel costs, crew time, and other travel-related expenses. This situation could be ameliorated if commercial fishing vessels were provided with protected moorage in Unalaska between fishing periods. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts to biological resources, traditional human uses, and the availability of other, less environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed action. Three alternative harbor sites and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve the development of a harbor on the southwest short of Amaknak Island in n area locally known as Little South America. The harbor would be designed to moor 75 boats from 24 to 45 meters in overall length. The harbor would consists of a 181-meter fubblemound breakwater and two floating breakwaters totaling 398 meters in length to protect 5.6 hectares of mooring area at a depth of 5.5 meters below mean lower low water and a 1.2-hectare entrance and maneuvering area. A natural reef would support the rubblemound breakwater by reducing long-period waves from the south. Harbor development would take place over two years. Cost of harbor development is estimated at $23.7 million, and the benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.4. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The harbor would provide a safe haven for fishing vessels, as well as other vessels, year round, thereby allowing fishing vessels to remain in the Unalaska area during seasonal closures and operate their vessels more efficiently. Maintenance of the vessels year-round would also provide a boost to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The threatened Alaska breeding population of Steller's eiders would lose 10 hectares of winter foraging habitat and could be intermittently displaced brom an additional 30 hectares of foraging and resting habitat. The risk of collision with boats for this species would also be heightened. The same habitat provides habitat for ducks and seabirds. Seafood waste discharge and petroleum contamination from spills could impact water quality. Walleye pollock, pink salmon, and small Pacific cod would lose nearshore habitat along about 700 meters of shoreline that includes 1.85 hectares of nearshore bottom habitat and 0.7 hectare of adjacent intertidal habitat. Approximately 3.5 hectares of diverse and protective benthic habitat would be filled for staging purposes. The harbor would lie inside a national landmark and near both historic and pre-historic sites of importance, and harbor facilities would mar the landscape. The harbor would eliminate the possibility of rejuvenated subsistence collection of shellfish and other marine invertebrates in the immediate area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 040284, Draft EIS--237 pages, Appendices--338 pages, June 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Reefs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shellfish KW - Subsistence KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36357397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+UNALASKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+UNALASKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION RIO GRANDE, STARR, HIDALGO, AND CAMERON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - OPERATION RIO GRANDE, STARR, HIDALGO, AND CAMERON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36353556; 10835-040283_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a strategy initiated by the US Border Patrol (USBP) in August 1997 to aid in reducing illegal immigration and drug traffic along the Rio Grande corridor of the McAllen Sector of the USBP in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas is proposed. The strategy, known as "Operation Rio Grande", is part of a larger effort designed to reduce or eliminate illegal drug activity and illegal entry along the southwestern border of the US. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist activities, securing U.S. borders against illegal entry has become an increased focus of the USBP. A No Action Alternative and a preferred alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred action, the strategy would have five components: installation of permanent and portable lighting, road improvement, fencing, construction of boat ramps, and mowing. More specifically, the strategy would involve actions at six USBP stations, as follows: 1) installation of permanent lighting and provision of boat ramps at the Grande City Station; 2) installation of permanent lighting, road improvements, and provision of boat ramps at the Mercedes Station; 3) installation of permanent lighting, improvement or roads, and provision of boat ramps at the McAllen Station; 4) installation of permanent lighting, road improvements, and provision of boat ramps at the Harlingen Station; 5) road improvements, provision or boat ramps, fencing, and mowing at the Brownsville Station, and 6) fencing, road improvements, and provision of boat ramps at the Oiort Isabel Station. The Harlingen, Brownsville, and Port Isabel stations currently have portable lighting and the Brownsville Station currently has permanent lighting as agreed under a September 2000 lawsuit. No new lighting would be provided at the Brownsville and Port Isabel stations and only permanent lishing would be provided at the Harlingen Station. The current permanent /portable lighting at these three stations is, nevertheless, addressed in this EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The strategy would reduce the influx of illegal immigrants and drugs into the McAllen Sector, particularly into towns; increase arrests of those not deterred; increase safety for USBP agency; decrease response time; and decrease the risk of drowning as illegal immigrants attempt to cross the river and/or irrigation canals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term disturbances during facility development would disturb soils and vegetation and result in sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The associated aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat would be affected by this disturbances. Two endangered species, the ocelot and Jaguarundi, could be affected by the lighting facilities, as these species are nocturnal. The facilities would degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Disturbance of cultural resource sites could occur, but this impact is unlikely to be of any significance. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0292D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040283, 569 pages, June 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drugs KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - International Programs KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+RIO+GRANDE%2C+STARR%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+CAMERON+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=OPERATION+RIO+GRANDE%2C+STARR%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+CAMERON+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Washington, District of Columbia; DOJ N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS, UNALASKA, ALASKA. AN - 16349207; 10836 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of harbor facilities in the Unalaska area of Alaska is proposed. Unalaska is in the Aleutian Island chain approximately 1,300 kilometers southwest of Anchorage. The city is the largest community and port in the Aleutian Islands. Although the city functions as a regional transportation center for fuel and other materials to many communities of western and northern coastal Alaska, its primary economic base is the North Pacific and Bering Sea fisheries. The deeep-water natural harbors of Unalaska do not offer adequate protection to enture that most Unalaska commercial fishing can be protected from damage if left unattended for extended periods. Rafting bessels at existing morrages causes damage to vessels sand docks and increased labor costs. As a consequence, many fishing vessels return to homeports or other harbors during extended fishery closures. This results in increased fuel costs, crew time, and other travel-related expenses. This situation could be ameliorated if commercial fishing vessels were provided with protected moorage in Unalaska between fishing periods. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to impacts to biological resources, traditional human uses, and the availability of other, less environmentally damaging alternatives to the proposed action. Three alternative harbor sites and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative would involve the development of a harbor on the southwest short of Amaknak Island in n area locally known as Little South America. The harbor would be designed to moor 75 boats from 24 to 45 meters in overall length. The harbor would consists of a 181-meter fubblemound breakwater and two floating breakwaters totaling 398 meters in length to protect 5.6 hectares of mooring area at a depth of 5.5 meters below mean lower low water and a 1.2-hectare entrance and maneuvering area. A natural reef would support the rubblemound breakwater by reducing long-period waves from the south. Harbor development would take place over two years. Cost of harbor development is estimated at $23.7 million, and the benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.4. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The harbor would provide a safe haven for fishing vessels, as well as other vessels, year round, thereby allowing fishing vessels to remain in the Unalaska area during seasonal closures and operate their vessels more efficiently. Maintenance of the vessels year-round would also provide a boost to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The threatened Alaska breeding population of Steller's eiders would lose 10 hectares of winter foraging habitat and could be intermittently displaced brom an additional 30 hectares of foraging and resting habitat. The risk of collision with boats for this species would also be heightened. The same habitat provides habitat for ducks and seabirds. Seafood waste discharge and petroleum contamination from spills could impact water quality. Walleye pollock, pink salmon, and small Pacific cod would lose nearshore habitat along about 700 meters of shoreline that includes 1.85 hectares of nearshore bottom habitat and 0.7 hectare of adjacent intertidal habitat. Approximately 3.5 hectares of diverse and protective benthic habitat would be filled for staging purposes. The harbor would lie inside a national landmark and near both historic and pre-historic sites of importance, and harbor facilities would mar the landscape. The harbor would eliminate the possibility of rejuvenated subsistence collection of shellfish and other marine invertebrates in the immediate area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 040284, Draft EIS--237 pages, Appendices--338 pages, June 15, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Islands KW - Navigation KW - Reefs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shellfish KW - Subsistence KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16349207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+UNALASKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NAVIGATION+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+UNALASKA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Anchorage, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION RIO GRANDE, STARR, HIDALGO, AND CAMERON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 16345662; 10835 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a strategy initiated by the US Border Patrol (USBP) in August 1997 to aid in reducing illegal immigration and drug traffic along the Rio Grande corridor of the McAllen Sector of the USBP in Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron counties, Texas is proposed. The strategy, known as "Operation Rio Grande", is part of a larger effort designed to reduce or eliminate illegal drug activity and illegal entry along the southwestern border of the US. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist activities, securing U.S. borders against illegal entry has become an increased focus of the USBP. A No Action Alternative and a preferred alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred action, the strategy would have five components: installation of permanent and portable lighting, road improvement, fencing, construction of boat ramps, and mowing. More specifically, the strategy would involve actions at six USBP stations, as follows: 1) installation of permanent lighting and provision of boat ramps at the Grande City Station; 2) installation of permanent lighting, road improvements, and provision of boat ramps at the Mercedes Station; 3) installation of permanent lighting, improvement or roads, and provision of boat ramps at the McAllen Station; 4) installation of permanent lighting, road improvements, and provision of boat ramps at the Harlingen Station; 5) road improvements, provision or boat ramps, fencing, and mowing at the Brownsville Station, and 6) fencing, road improvements, and provision of boat ramps at the Oiort Isabel Station. The Harlingen, Brownsville, and Port Isabel stations currently have portable lighting and the Brownsville Station currently has permanent lighting as agreed under a September 2000 lawsuit. No new lighting would be provided at the Brownsville and Port Isabel stations and only permanent lishing would be provided at the Harlingen Station. The current permanent /portable lighting at these three stations is, nevertheless, addressed in this EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The strategy would reduce the influx of illegal immigrants and drugs into the McAllen Sector, particularly into towns; increase arrests of those not deterred; increase safety for USBP agency; decrease response time; and decrease the risk of drowning as illegal immigrants attempt to cross the river and/or irrigation canals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term disturbances during facility development would disturb soils and vegetation and result in sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The associated aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat would be affected by this disturbances. Two endangered species, the ocelot and Jaguarundi, could be affected by the lighting facilities, as these species are nocturnal. The facilities would degrade visual aesthetics in the area. Disturbance of cultural resource sites could occur, but this impact is unlikely to be of any significance. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0292D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040283, 569 pages, June 15, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drugs KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - International Programs KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mexico KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+RIO+GRANDE%2C+STARR%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+CAMERON+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=OPERATION+RIO+GRANDE%2C+STARR%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+CAMERON+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Washington, District of Columbia; DOJ N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT ROYAL OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION, SOUTH CAROLINA. [X]Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. AN - 36436323; 10833 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of a ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for material dredged from channels within Pot Royal, South Carolina is proposed. Federal waterways at Port Royal Harbor include a 24-foot-deep channel in the Beaufort River and Battery Creek, a 27-foot-deep turning basin at the head of Battery Creek, and a 27-foot-deep entrance channel. The entrance channel to Port Royal shoals more frequently than the Beaufort River/Battery Creek channel. The entrance channel has been dredged nine times between 1980 and 2003. The turning basing and Battery Creek have been dredged twice since 1956. After a period of decline, the port has experience an increase in freight tonnage throughput. Expected tonnage of clay, feldspar, and aggregate in the future would require the port to operate at full capacity. There is a lack of appropriate dredged material disposal sites in the Port Royal area. Most nearby land is either privately owned or protected marshland. The proposed 1.5-nautical-square-mile ODMDS lies in waters with an average depth of 36 feet. Sediments at the selected site are compatible with sediments from the entrance channel, the materials most likely to be disposed at the site. In addition to the promosed ODMDS, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the ODMDS would provide for an environmentally appropriate, economically feasible of disposing of materials dredged for maintenance of the entrance and other channels within the port, thereby helping to maintain the viability of the port for future operations. Port operations would provide for local employment and otherwise boost the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would result in the destruction of benthic organisms and the temporary release of sediments into the water column. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0118D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040281, 106 pages, June 14, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Wastes KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Gravel KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sand KW - Site Planning KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - South Carolina 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/36436323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+ROYAL+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+DESIGNATION%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.+Environmental+Protection+Agency%2C+Region+4%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia.&rft.title=PORT+ROYAL+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+DESIGNATION%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.+Environmental+Protection+Agency%2C+Region+4%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 14, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT ROYAL OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION, SOUTH CAROLINA. [X]Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PORT ROYAL OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION, SOUTH CAROLINA. [X]Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia. AN - 36391529; 10833-040281_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of a ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for material dredged from channels within Pot Royal, South Carolina is proposed. Federal waterways at Port Royal Harbor include a 24-foot-deep channel in the Beaufort River and Battery Creek, a 27-foot-deep turning basin at the head of Battery Creek, and a 27-foot-deep entrance channel. The entrance channel to Port Royal shoals more frequently than the Beaufort River/Battery Creek channel. The entrance channel has been dredged nine times between 1980 and 2003. The turning basing and Battery Creek have been dredged twice since 1956. After a period of decline, the port has experience an increase in freight tonnage throughput. Expected tonnage of clay, feldspar, and aggregate in the future would require the port to operate at full capacity. There is a lack of appropriate dredged material disposal sites in the Port Royal area. Most nearby land is either privately owned or protected marshland. The proposed 1.5-nautical-square-mile ODMDS lies in waters with an average depth of 36 feet. Sediments at the selected site are compatible with sediments from the entrance channel, the materials most likely to be disposed at the site. In addition to the promosed ODMDS, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the ODMDS would provide for an environmentally appropriate, economically feasible of disposing of materials dredged for maintenance of the entrance and other channels within the port, thereby helping to maintain the viability of the port for future operations. Port operations would provide for local employment and otherwise boost the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would result in the destruction of benthic organisms and the temporary release of sediments into the water column. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0118D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040281, 106 pages, June 14, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Gravel KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sand KW - Site Planning KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - South Carolina 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/36391529?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+ROYAL+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+DESIGNATION%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.+Environmental+Protection+Agency%2C+Region+4%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia.&rft.title=PORT+ROYAL+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+DESIGNATION%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.+Environmental+Protection+Agency%2C+Region+4%2C+Atlanta%2C+Georgia.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 14, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 36369567; 10834-040282_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of gold mining operations at the Pipeline Mine within the Gold Acres Mining District in Lander County, Nevada is proposed. The project area lies 30 miles southeast of Battle Mountain. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of February 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses the applicant's proposal, a No Action Alternative, and two additional alternative. Under the applicant's proposed action, Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (GCM) would develop the South Pipeline ore deposit and construct associated facilities to continue to extract gold from the mined ore within the project area. GCM would conduct certain activities at the approved Cortez Facilities without substantial modification to those facilities. In addition, the applicant's proposal would include a right-of-way (ROW)application for construction of a water pipeline and plans to modify a portion of the Gold Acres Facilities. The principal components of the proposed action would include: expansion of the Pipeline open pit, which would eventually include the South Pipeline open pit; a new heap leach facility; expansion of the existing Pipeline waste rock dump and tailings facility; extension of process solution pipelines from the South Pipeline leach facility to other process facilities within the project area; new ore and sub-grade ore and growth media stockpiles; increasing of the Pipeline mill throughput; development of new groundwater extraction wells; rerouting of a portion of Cortez Mine Road; abandonment of a portion of the ROW for the Gold Acres haul road; establishment of ROW for a pipeline to deliver water to Dean Ranch; and delivery of up to 6,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to the adjacent Dean Ranch via the ROW for consumption on private land. The rate of groundwater pumping and disposal would be no greater than 34,500 gpm. The applicant's proposal would not alter CGM's current average mining rate of 150,000 tons per day (tpd); the maximum rate would be 250,000 tpd. An estimated 150 million tons of ore would be mined from the South Pipeline open pit, resulting in 450 million tons of waste rock. Most of the waste rock (250 million tons) would be hauled to a mined-out portion of the South Pipeline open pit. The project would also include dewatering and reclamation provisions. The mine life would extend eight years, with an additional two years for further ore processing and site closure. The schedule could change if reserves were found to be greater than expected or economic conditions change. A Complete Backfill Alternative, also under consideration, would dispose of waste rock into the Pipeline/South Pipeline and Gap open pits Under the No Backfill Alternative, the 590 million tons of waste rock that would be mined under the proposed action would be disposed in the existing Pipeline/South Pipeline waste rock dump and on a new dump adjacent to the Gap open pit. The second and third action alternative would involve alternation of the mining sequence and backfilling provisions. The applicant's proposal has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would extend the operational life of CGM's mining and processing operations by eight years and continue to employ 450 to 500 workers during that period. Approximately 4.58 million ounces of gold and minor amounts of silver would be generated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would disturb 4,450 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed, resulting in an overall disturbed area of up to 7,676 acres of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. Implementation of the Complete Backfill Alternative would disturb 3,841 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed. Mining and related activities would result in restriction of future mineral resource extraction due to facility siting, dewatering of streams and springs and resultant loss of vegetation including special status species, degradation of groundwater quality, introduction of noxious weeds to disturbed areas, Blasting activities would result in significant noise emissions, and accidental spills of hazardous materials would pose a hazard to human populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0336D, Volume 23, Number 4 and 00-0170F, Volume 24, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040282, 381 pages and maps, June 14, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NVN067575(01-1A) KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Land Management KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=SOUTH+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%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: June 14, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2000). AN - 16350307; 10834 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of gold mining operations at the Pipeline Mine within the Gold Acres Mining District in Lander County, Nevada is proposed. The project area lies 30 miles southeast of Battle Mountain. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final EIS of February 2000. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses the applicant's proposal, a No Action Alternative, and two additional alternative. Under the applicant's proposed action, Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (GCM) would develop the South Pipeline ore deposit and construct associated facilities to continue to extract gold from the mined ore within the project area. GCM would conduct certain activities at the approved Cortez Facilities without substantial modification to those facilities. In addition, the applicant's proposal would include a right-of-way (ROW)application for construction of a water pipeline and plans to modify a portion of the Gold Acres Facilities. The principal components of the proposed action would include: expansion of the Pipeline open pit, which would eventually include the South Pipeline open pit; a new heap leach facility; expansion of the existing Pipeline waste rock dump and tailings facility; extension of process solution pipelines from the South Pipeline leach facility to other process facilities within the project area; new ore and sub-grade ore and growth media stockpiles; increasing of the Pipeline mill throughput; development of new groundwater extraction wells; rerouting of a portion of Cortez Mine Road; abandonment of a portion of the ROW for the Gold Acres haul road; establishment of ROW for a pipeline to deliver water to Dean Ranch; and delivery of up to 6,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to the adjacent Dean Ranch via the ROW for consumption on private land. The rate of groundwater pumping and disposal would be no greater than 34,500 gpm. The applicant's proposal would not alter CGM's current average mining rate of 150,000 tons per day (tpd); the maximum rate would be 250,000 tpd. An estimated 150 million tons of ore would be mined from the South Pipeline open pit, resulting in 450 million tons of waste rock. Most of the waste rock (250 million tons) would be hauled to a mined-out portion of the South Pipeline open pit. The project would also include dewatering and reclamation provisions. The mine life would extend eight years, with an additional two years for further ore processing and site closure. The schedule could change if reserves were found to be greater than expected or economic conditions change. A Complete Backfill Alternative, also under consideration, would dispose of waste rock into the Pipeline/South Pipeline and Gap open pits Under the No Backfill Alternative, the 590 million tons of waste rock that would be mined under the proposed action would be disposed in the existing Pipeline/South Pipeline waste rock dump and on a new dump adjacent to the Gap open pit. The second and third action alternative would involve alternation of the mining sequence and backfilling provisions. The applicant's proposal has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would extend the operational life of CGM's mining and processing operations by eight years and continue to employ 450 to 500 workers during that period. Approximately 4.58 million ounces of gold and minor amounts of silver would be generated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The applicant's proposal would disturb 4,450 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed, resulting in an overall disturbed area of up to 7,676 acres of vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. Implementation of the Complete Backfill Alternative would disturb 3,841 acres of surface in addition to that already disturbed. Mining and related activities would result in restriction of future mineral resource extraction due to facility siting, dewatering of streams and springs and resultant loss of vegetation including special status species, degradation of groundwater quality, introduction of noxious weeds to disturbed areas, Blasting activities would result in significant noise emissions, and accidental spills of hazardous materials would pose a hazard to human populations in the area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0336D, Volume 23, Number 4 and 00-0170F, Volume 24, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040282, 381 pages and maps, June 14, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NVN067575(01-1A) KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Substances KW - Land Management KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Streams KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16350307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%29.&rft.title=SOUTH+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+2000%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: June 14, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 36371114; 10823-040271_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements to relieve congestion and functional deficiencies along Routes 9 and 100 in the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Windham County, Vermont is proposed. Route 9 provides the only east-west arterial connection across southern Vermont, while Route 100 constitutes the only north-south arterial route through the region. The study area extends 5.7 miles along Route 9 from approximately the Wilmington /Marlboro townline west through the Wilmington Village center to the Wilmington/Searsburn townline. Route 100 from the Wilmington Village center north to Mt. Snow in West Dover, a distance of 10.5 miles, is included in the study area as it also experiences congestion and exhibits safety problems. Nine alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the transportation demand management /transportation system management alternative, action alternatives include an upgrade alternative involving modification of Routes 9 and 100 to eliminate structural deficiencies and increase capacity and six reconstruction alternatives, each of which would involve reconstruction and/or construction of new roadways on relocated alignments. Two alternatives could incorporate a tunnel to replace the open cut at Lisle Hill Road. The preferred alternative (Castle Hill Alternative) would involve construction of a new roadway that would extend from Route 9 at the intersection with Haystack Road, pass under Fairview Avenue, pass over Castle Hill Road and Boyd Hill Road, and continue on to intersect with existing Route 9 at the Route 100 South intersection. To maintain access to the Wilmington Village, connections to the exiting Route 9 would be provided at the westerly and easterly endpoints of the enw roadway. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $32.6 million, including $18.8 million for roadway construction, $13.4 million for bridge construction, and $250,000 for traffic signals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Build alternatives would address structural and capacity problems affecting the current roadways. Reduced congestion resulting from implementation of certain alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would displace up to two residences and one business, 16.1 acres of farmland, 0.52 acre of wetlands, 0.11 acre of floodplain associated with Beaver Brook, 918 feet of streambank habitat, and 48.5 acres of forested land and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for two federally protected species of fish. Relocation alternatives would also encounter up to three hazardous materials sites, and adversely affect two to 13 structures potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. One well and up to seven water source protection areas could be affected. New or widened bridges would cross up to 22 surface water flows. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 26 locations. A high rock cut required for the project would have a high visual impact at each end and grade-separated road crossings at five locations. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 98-0392D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040271, Final EIS--321 pages, Figures--Oversized Supplement, Appendices 1-4--401 pages, June 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-98-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont 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/36371114?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&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: June 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 36370726; 10823-040271_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements to relieve congestion and functional deficiencies along Routes 9 and 100 in the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Windham County, Vermont is proposed. Route 9 provides the only east-west arterial connection across southern Vermont, while Route 100 constitutes the only north-south arterial route through the region. The study area extends 5.7 miles along Route 9 from approximately the Wilmington /Marlboro townline west through the Wilmington Village center to the Wilmington/Searsburn townline. Route 100 from the Wilmington Village center north to Mt. Snow in West Dover, a distance of 10.5 miles, is included in the study area as it also experiences congestion and exhibits safety problems. Nine alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the transportation demand management /transportation system management alternative, action alternatives include an upgrade alternative involving modification of Routes 9 and 100 to eliminate structural deficiencies and increase capacity and six reconstruction alternatives, each of which would involve reconstruction and/or construction of new roadways on relocated alignments. Two alternatives could incorporate a tunnel to replace the open cut at Lisle Hill Road. The preferred alternative (Castle Hill Alternative) would involve construction of a new roadway that would extend from Route 9 at the intersection with Haystack Road, pass under Fairview Avenue, pass over Castle Hill Road and Boyd Hill Road, and continue on to intersect with existing Route 9 at the Route 100 South intersection. To maintain access to the Wilmington Village, connections to the exiting Route 9 would be provided at the westerly and easterly endpoints of the enw roadway. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $32.6 million, including $18.8 million for roadway construction, $13.4 million for bridge construction, and $250,000 for traffic signals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Build alternatives would address structural and capacity problems affecting the current roadways. Reduced congestion resulting from implementation of certain alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would displace up to two residences and one business, 16.1 acres of farmland, 0.52 acre of wetlands, 0.11 acre of floodplain associated with Beaver Brook, 918 feet of streambank habitat, and 48.5 acres of forested land and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for two federally protected species of fish. Relocation alternatives would also encounter up to three hazardous materials sites, and adversely affect two to 13 structures potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. One well and up to seven water source protection areas could be affected. New or widened bridges would cross up to 22 surface water flows. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 26 locations. A high rock cut required for the project would have a high visual impact at each end and grade-separated road crossings at five locations. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 98-0392D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040271, Final EIS--321 pages, Figures--Oversized Supplement, Appendices 1-4--401 pages, June 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-98-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont 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/36370726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&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: June 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 36368273; 10823-040271_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements to relieve congestion and functional deficiencies along Routes 9 and 100 in the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Windham County, Vermont is proposed. Route 9 provides the only east-west arterial connection across southern Vermont, while Route 100 constitutes the only north-south arterial route through the region. The study area extends 5.7 miles along Route 9 from approximately the Wilmington /Marlboro townline west through the Wilmington Village center to the Wilmington/Searsburn townline. Route 100 from the Wilmington Village center north to Mt. Snow in West Dover, a distance of 10.5 miles, is included in the study area as it also experiences congestion and exhibits safety problems. Nine alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the transportation demand management /transportation system management alternative, action alternatives include an upgrade alternative involving modification of Routes 9 and 100 to eliminate structural deficiencies and increase capacity and six reconstruction alternatives, each of which would involve reconstruction and/or construction of new roadways on relocated alignments. Two alternatives could incorporate a tunnel to replace the open cut at Lisle Hill Road. The preferred alternative (Castle Hill Alternative) would involve construction of a new roadway that would extend from Route 9 at the intersection with Haystack Road, pass under Fairview Avenue, pass over Castle Hill Road and Boyd Hill Road, and continue on to intersect with existing Route 9 at the Route 100 South intersection. To maintain access to the Wilmington Village, connections to the exiting Route 9 would be provided at the westerly and easterly endpoints of the enw roadway. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $32.6 million, including $18.8 million for roadway construction, $13.4 million for bridge construction, and $250,000 for traffic signals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Build alternatives would address structural and capacity problems affecting the current roadways. Reduced congestion resulting from implementation of certain alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would displace up to two residences and one business, 16.1 acres of farmland, 0.52 acre of wetlands, 0.11 acre of floodplain associated with Beaver Brook, 918 feet of streambank habitat, and 48.5 acres of forested land and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for two federally protected species of fish. Relocation alternatives would also encounter up to three hazardous materials sites, and adversely affect two to 13 structures potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. One well and up to seven water source protection areas could be affected. New or widened bridges would cross up to 22 surface water flows. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 26 locations. A high rock cut required for the project would have a high visual impact at each end and grade-separated road crossings at five locations. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 98-0392D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040271, Final EIS--321 pages, Figures--Oversized Supplement, Appendices 1-4--401 pages, June 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-98-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont 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/36368273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&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: June 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT STUDY - ROUTES 9 AND 100 (NH-010-1(33)), WILMINGTON AND DOVER, WINDHAM COUNTY, VERMONT. AN - 16352356; 10823 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements to relieve congestion and functional deficiencies along Routes 9 and 100 in the towns of Wilmington and Dover, Windham County, Vermont is proposed. Route 9 provides the only east-west arterial connection across southern Vermont, while Route 100 constitutes the only north-south arterial route through the region. The study area extends 5.7 miles along Route 9 from approximately the Wilmington /Marlboro townline west through the Wilmington Village center to the Wilmington/Searsburn townline. Route 100 from the Wilmington Village center north to Mt. Snow in West Dover, a distance of 10.5 miles, is included in the study area as it also experiences congestion and exhibits safety problems. Nine alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. In addition to the transportation demand management /transportation system management alternative, action alternatives include an upgrade alternative involving modification of Routes 9 and 100 to eliminate structural deficiencies and increase capacity and six reconstruction alternatives, each of which would involve reconstruction and/or construction of new roadways on relocated alignments. Two alternatives could incorporate a tunnel to replace the open cut at Lisle Hill Road. The preferred alternative (Castle Hill Alternative) would involve construction of a new roadway that would extend from Route 9 at the intersection with Haystack Road, pass under Fairview Avenue, pass over Castle Hill Road and Boyd Hill Road, and continue on to intersect with existing Route 9 at the Route 100 South intersection. To maintain access to the Wilmington Village, connections to the exiting Route 9 would be provided at the westerly and easterly endpoints of the enw roadway. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $32.6 million, including $18.8 million for roadway construction, $13.4 million for bridge construction, and $250,000 for traffic signals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Build alternatives would address structural and capacity problems affecting the current roadways. Reduced congestion resulting from implementation of certain alternatives would improve air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would displace up to two residences and one business, 16.1 acres of farmland, 0.52 acre of wetlands, 0.11 acre of floodplain associated with Beaver Brook, 918 feet of streambank habitat, and 48.5 acres of forested land and the associated wildlife habitat, including habitat for two federally protected species of fish. Relocation alternatives would also encounter up to three hazardous materials sites, and adversely affect two to 13 structures potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. One well and up to seven water source protection areas could be affected. New or widened bridges would cross up to 22 surface water flows. Noise levels would exceed federal standards at 26 locations. A high rock cut required for the project would have a high visual impact at each end and grade-separated road crossings at five locations. LEGAL MANDATES: 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 98-0392D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040271, Final EIS--321 pages, Figures--Oversized Supplement, Appendices 1-4--401 pages, June 7, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VT-EIS-98-01-F KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Vermont 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/16352356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&rft.title=TRANSPORTATION+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY+-+ROUTES+9+AND+100+%28NH-010-1%2833%29%29%2C+WILMINGTON+AND+DOVER%2C+WINDHAM+COUNTY%2C+VERMONT.&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: June 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Cost and performance report; field demonstration of rhizosphere-enhanced treatment of organics-contaminated soils on Native American lands with application to northern FUD sites AN - 51805108; 2004-067451 JF - ERDC/CRREL Letter Report AU - Reynolds, Charles M Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - June 2004 SP - 46 PB - U. S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH KW - United States KW - fertilizers KW - land cover KW - permafrost KW - vegetation KW - environmental analysis KW - Barrow Alaska KW - remediation KW - ground water KW - environmental management KW - mitigation KW - fungi KW - soils KW - Annette Island KW - Southeastern Alaska KW - pollutants KW - Campion Air Force Station KW - pollution KW - cost KW - organic compounds KW - Alaska Panhandle KW - Northern Alaska KW - bacteria KW - hydrocarbons KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - Alaska KW - military facilities KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51805108?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=Reynolds%2C+Charles+M&rft.aulast=Reynolds&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Cost+and+performance+report%3B+field+demonstration+of+rhizosphere-enhanced+treatment+of+organics-contaminated+soils+on+Native+American+lands+with+application+to+northern+FUD+sites&rft.title=Cost+and+performance+report%3B+field+demonstration+of+rhizosphere-enhanced+treatment+of+organics-contaminated+soils+on+Native+American+lands+with+application+to+northern+FUD+sites&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 22 N1 - PubXState - NH N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 6 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendix N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #05693 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; Alaska Panhandle; Annette Island; aromatic hydrocarbons; bacteria; Barrow Alaska; Campion Air Force Station; cost; environmental analysis; environmental management; fertilizers; fungi; ground water; hydrocarbons; land cover; military facilities; mitigation; Northern Alaska; organic compounds; permafrost; pollutants; pollution; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; remediation; soils; Southeastern Alaska; United States; vegetation ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Declining intensity of acid mine drainage in the Northern Appalachian bituminous coal fields; major Allegheny River tributaries AN - 51129636; 2005-071620 JF - Journal of the American Water Resources Association AU - Koryak, Michael AU - Stafford, Linda J AU - Reilly, Rosemary J Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - June 2004 SP - 677 EP - 689 PB - American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, VA VL - 40 IS - 3 SN - 1093-474X, 1093-474X KW - water quality KW - Allegheny River KW - watersheds KW - Appalachians KW - coal fields KW - bituminous coal KW - sedimentary rocks KW - chemical reactions KW - coal KW - alkalinity KW - geochemistry KW - pH KW - hydrology KW - North America KW - mines KW - monitoring KW - acid mine drainage KW - oxidation KW - coal mines KW - pollution KW - iron sulfides KW - sulfur KW - Northern Appalachians KW - sulfides KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51129636?accountid=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+the+American+Water+Resources+Association&rft.atitle=Declining+intensity+of+acid+mine+drainage+in+the+Northern+Appalachian+bituminous+coal+fields%3B+major+Allegheny+River+tributaries&rft.au=Koryak%2C+Michael%3BStafford%2C+Linda+J%3BReilly%2C+Rosemary+J&rft.aulast=Koryak&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=677&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+American+Water+Resources+Association&rft.issn=1093474X&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1093-474X&site=1 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 28 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - WARBAQ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acid mine drainage; alkalinity; Allegheny River; Appalachians; bituminous coal; chemical reactions; coal; coal fields; coal mines; geochemistry; hydrology; iron sulfides; mines; monitoring; North America; Northern Appalachians; oxidation; pH; pollution; sedimentary rocks; sulfides; sulfur; water quality; watersheds ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Managing for Water Clarity in Chesapeake Bay AN - 20600480; 6157006 AB - Diminished clarity has been listed as a water quality impairment in Chesapeake Bay. The CE-QUAL-ICM eutrophication model has been revised and recalibrated to provide management guidance in alleviating impaired clarity. The algorithms used to model light attenuation and suspended solids are presented herein. Computed and observed total and volatile solids and light attenuation are examined in several formats. A solids budget constructed for the bay identifies major solids sources as internal production, bank erosion, and watershed loading. Sensitivity to loading sources and a key management scenario are examined. Major but feasible reductions in solids and nutrient loads, coupled with reductions in bank erosion, are calculated to meet clarity goals at the 1-m depth in the main bay and major eastern embayments. Careful examination of model results at small scales is required to verify large-scale findings, however. We recommend major improvements in monitoring, computation of light attenuation, and in sediment transport modeling to improve the state of the art in modeling and management of water clarity. JF - Journal of Environmental Engineering AU - Cerco, C F AU - Noel, M R AU - Linker, L AD - Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - Jun 2004 SP - 631 EP - 642 VL - 130 IS - 6 SN - 0733-9372, 0733-9372 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - water quality KW - Eutrophication KW - Nutrient loading KW - Algorithms KW - Nutrients KW - Watersheds KW - Water quality KW - Volatile Solids KW - Suspended Solids KW - Sediment transport KW - Water Quality Control KW - budgets KW - Sediment Transport KW - USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - Pollution Load KW - Solids KW - Light attenuation KW - Suspended particulate matter KW - ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay KW - Model Studies KW - Erosion KW - Water management KW - Bank Erosion KW - Monitoring KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - SW 3070:Water quality control KW - Q5 08505:Prevention and control KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20600480?accountid=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=Managing+for+Water+Clarity+in+Chesapeake+Bay&rft.au=Cerco%2C+C+F%3BNoel%2C+M+R%3BLinker%2C+L&rft.aulast=Cerco&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=631&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Environmental+Engineering&rft.issn=07339372&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%290733-9372%282004%29130%3A6%28631%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2005-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Special Issue: Quantitative Approaches to the Determination of Total Maximum Daily Loads. N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Eutrophication; Water management; Sediment transport; Suspended particulate matter; Light attenuation; Water quality; Watersheds; water quality; Erosion; Nutrient loading; budgets; Sediment Transport; Algorithms; Pollution Load; Solids; Nutrients; Volatile Solids; Model Studies; Suspended Solids; Bank Erosion; Monitoring; Water Quality Control; USA, Chesapeake Bay; ANW, USA, Chesapeake Bay DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2004)130:6(631) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Spray Stress Revisited AN - 19940310; 5988516 AB - In winds approaching hurricane strength, spray droplets proliferate. Once created, these droplets accelerate to the local wind speed in 1 s or less and thereby extract momentum from the wind. Because these droplets have substantial mass, they eventually plunge back into the ocean, delivering their horizontal momentum to the surface in the form of a spray stress. Inadequate information on the production rate and size distribution of spray droplets, however, hampered previous attempts to estimate the magnitude of this spray-mediated momentum exchange. This paper therefore uses recent estimates of the spray generation function to reconsider spray's ability to alter air-sea momentum exchange. Conservation of momentum requires that spray cannot enhance the air- sea stress beyond what the large-scale flow dictates. However, spray can redistribute stress in the near-surface atmosphere since the wind must slow if the spray droplets accelerate. For a wind of 30 m s-1, spray supports about 10% of the surface stress; for a wind of about 60 m s-1, spray supports all of the surface stress. The paper goes on to show how this partitioning affects the near-surface wind speed profile. Last, the paper reviews evidence that suggests the sea surface undergoes a transition in its aerodynamic behavior in the wind speed range 30-40 m s-1. The fact that whitecap coverage extrapolates to 100% in this range may be one cause. Also in this range, the 'rain' of spray droplets back onto the sea surface creates a mass flux with a magnitude that has been shown to damp the short waves that sustain most of the atmospheric drag on the sea surface. As a consequence, spray may play a key role in a negative feedback loop that limits air-sea momentum transfer. JF - Journal of Physical Oceanography AU - Andreas, EL AD - U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-1290, eandreas@crrel.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - June 2004 SP - 1429 EP - 1440 PB - American Meteorological Society VL - 34 IS - 6 SN - 0022-3670, 0022-3670 KW - Oceanic Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Wind stress KW - Droplets KW - Sprays KW - Sea spray droplet effects on air-sea exchange KW - Stress KW - Atmosphere KW - Air-water interface KW - Air-sea interaction KW - Hurricanes KW - Sea spray droplets KW - Oceans KW - Reviews KW - Spray KW - Aerodynamics KW - Ocean-atmosphere system KW - Conservation KW - Stress (mechanics) KW - Momentum transfer KW - physical oceanography KW - Hurricane winds KW - Q2 09242:Observations and measurements at sea KW - M2 551.556:Wind Effects (551.556) KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - M2 551.465.752:Process of momentum exchange as such. Boundary layer. (Roughness) Wind-stress parameters (551.465.752) KW - O 2070:Meteorology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19940310?accountid=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+Physical+Oceanography&rft.atitle=Spray+Stress+Revisited&rft.au=Andreas%2C+EL&rft.aulast=Andreas&rft.aufirst=EL&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1429&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Physical+Oceanography&rft.issn=00223670&rft_id=info:doi/10.1175%2F1520-0485%282004%29034%281429%3ASSR%292.0.CO%3B2 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Wind stress; Hurricanes; Droplets; Aerodynamics; Spray; Ocean-atmosphere system; Stress (mechanics); Momentum transfer; Air-water interface; Air-sea interaction; Sea spray droplets; Sea spray droplet effects on air-sea exchange; Hurricane winds; Reviews; Oceans; Sprays; Conservation; Stress; Atmosphere; physical oceanography DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2004)034(1429:SSR)2.0.CO;2 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - What is Public Participation in Water Resources Management and Why is it Important? AN - 19935967; 5960251 AB - Control of water is control of life. How we exercise this control reveals what we value, who we are, and what type of society we seek to become. Water management and its civil infrastructure is closely linked to our civic culture. Participation is central to such linkages. This paper looks at five dimensions of participation to discern why it is important to decision makers in water resources management. JF - Water International AU - Priscoli, J D AD - Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Virginia, USA Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - June 2004 SP - 221 EP - 227 VL - 29 IS - 2 SN - 0250-8060, 0250-8060 KW - Community invovlement KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Human Population; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Decision making KW - Resource management KW - Water management KW - Water resources KW - Public Participation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Decision Making KW - Social Aspects KW - Public Opinion KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - M1 325:Human Habitat & Natural Resource Development KW - Q2 09127:General papers on resources KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19935967?accountid=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+International&rft.atitle=What+is+Public+Participation+in+Water+Resources+Management+and+Why+is+it+Important%3F&rft.au=Priscoli%2C+J+D&rft.aulast=Priscoli&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=221&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+International&rft.issn=02508060&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 - Water management; Water resources; Decision making; Resource management; Public Participation; Social Aspects; Decision Making; Water Resources Management; Public Opinion ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Salvinia molesta D. S. Mitchell (Giant Salvinia) in the United States: A Review of Species Ecology and Approaches to Management AN - 19446744; 7189978 AB - Over the past 70 years, the free-floating aquatic fern Salvinia molesta D. S. Mitchell (giant salvinia) has spread from its native range in Brazil to many tropical and subtropical regions. Though innocuous within its native range, elsewhere this species is an aggressive menace that has had devastating ecological and socioeconomic impacts on aquatic systems in parts of Africa, Sri Lanka, India, Australia, New Guinea, and the Philippines. In the United States, the plant is established in waterways in at least 10 states (mainly in the south) and is expected to continue to expand in areas generally where Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms (water hyacinth) persists. Listed as a Federal Noxious Weed since 1984, S. molesta is prohibited from importation to the United States and from transport across state lines. Dense mats of S. molesta can suppress growth of native vegetation and degrade water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and numerous other ecological values. Notably, massive infestations have occurred in the Swinney Marsh Complex, Texas, in the Lower Colorado River, Arizona/California, and in Lake Wilson and Enchanted Lake, Hawaii. This report presents a review of available information on the growth, distribution, and ecology of S. molesta. Information is provided on the plant's taxonomic status, its field characteristics, phenology, and spread overseas and in the United States. Growth responses of S. molesta in relation to environmental variables (e.g., temperature, nutrients, light, pH, conductivity) are emphasized as are impacts of the species on the environment and other aquatic organisms. Different technologies (i.e., physical, chemical, biological, and integrated) applied to control S. molesta infestations are discussed along with information on the effectiveness of these procedures and their need for further study. JF - Special Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory AU - McFarland, D G AU - Nelson, L S AU - Grodowitz, MJ AU - Smart, R M AU - Owens, C S Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - June 2004 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Philippines KW - Aquatic organisms KW - water quality KW - Inland waters KW - Socioeconomics KW - Nutrients KW - Freshwater KW - Water quality KW - Sri Lanka KW - India KW - Lakes KW - Phenology KW - taxonomy KW - Research KW - pH KW - USA, Hawaii KW - Wildlife KW - Aquatic plants KW - Vegetation KW - rivers KW - Aquatic environment KW - Freshwater weeds KW - Infestation KW - Salvinia molesta KW - Literature reviews KW - Brazil KW - Africa KW - Fish KW - USA, Maine, Somerset Cty., Enchanted L. KW - Research programs KW - Technology KW - Ecological distribution KW - Eichhornia crassipes KW - Environmental factors KW - Ecology KW - New Guinea KW - Growth KW - Australia KW - Antarctica, Victoria Land, Wilson L. KW - USA, California KW - Temperature KW - phenology KW - Marshes KW - Water Hyacinth KW - ferns KW - Reviews KW - Plants KW - USA, Arizona KW - USA, Texas KW - Waterways KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19446744?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=McFarland%2C+D+G%3BNelson%2C+L+S%3BGrodowitz%2C+MJ%3BSmart%2C+R+M%3BOwens%2C+C+S&rft.aulast=McFarland&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Salvinia+molesta+D.+S.+Mitchell+%28Giant+Salvinia%29+in+the+United+States%3A+A+Review+of+Species+Ecology+and+Approaches+to+Management&rft.title=Salvinia+molesta+D.+S.+Mitchell+%28Giant+Salvinia%29+in+the+United+States%3A+A+Review+of+Species+Ecology+and+Approaches+to+Management&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 - Efficacy of AVAST! registered Fluridone Formulation Against Eurasian Watermilfoil and Nontarget Submersed Plants AN - 19444659; 7170605 AB - Experiments were conducted in a laboratory and an outdoor mesocosm system to evaluate the liquid AVAST! registered fluridone formulation for control of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). In addition, physiological assays were used to monitor plant injury during herbicide exposure. Eurasian watermilfoil was planted in 52-L aquaria, grown to precanopy condition (21 days), then dosed with 0, 10, 20, 40, and 80 mu g L super(-1) active ingredient (ai) fluridone for exposure times of 45 and 90 days. Elevated phytoene concentrations indicated herbicide exposure in all treated plants at 7 days after treatment (DAT). Visually, plants did not manifest symptoms of injury from fluridone until 14 DAT. beta -carotene concentrations suggested that fluridone disrupted photosynthesis as soon as 7 DAT. Both formulations were effective in controlling Eurasian watermilfoil. Biomass decreased by 90 percent at all application rates following the 45-day exposure and decreased by 99 percent following the 90-day exposure time. No significant differences occurred between application rates at either exposure time. Based on these results, rates of 6, 12, and 24 mu g ai L super(-1) fluridone were applied to Eurasian watermilfoil and four nontarget submersed aquatic species in an outdoor mesocosm system for a 56-day exposure time. Gradual herbicide dissipation in the mesocosms resulted in half-lives ranging from 23 to 24 days. Again, the AVAST! registered fluridone formulation was effective in controlling Eurasian watermilfoil. Biomass was reduced by >85 percent at all doses compared to the untreated reference. The AVAST! formulation did not significantly decrease biomass from wild celery (Vallisneria americana) and Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis) at any application rate. Biomass levels from elodea (Elodea canadensis) and sago pondweed (Stuckenia pectinata) were reduced at 12 and 24 mu g ai L super(-1). Symptoms of injury were evident in these plants by depressed beta -carotene pigment concentrations at 28 DAT; however, beta -carotene levels increased in sago pondweed by 56 DAT, suggesting recovery. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Poovey, A G AU - Skogerboe, J G AU - Getsinger, K D Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - June 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Symptoms KW - Photosynthesis KW - Injuries KW - Elodea KW - Physiology KW - Application Rates KW - Aquatic Macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae) KW - Elodea canadensis KW - Exposure KW - Pigments KW - Laboratory testing KW - USA, Illinois KW - Myriophyllum spicatum KW - Laboratories KW - Herbicides KW - Biomass KW - Mesocosms KW - Potamogeton illinoensis KW - Sago Pondweed KW - Plant control KW - Vallisneria americana KW - Waterways KW - Introduced species KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444659?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=Poovey%2C+A+G%3BSkogerboe%2C+J+G%3BGetsinger%2C+K+D&rft.aulast=Poovey&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Efficacy+of+AVAST%21+registered+Fluridone+Formulation+Against+Eurasian+Watermilfoil+and+Nontarget+Submersed+Plants&rft.title=Efficacy+of+AVAST%21+registered+Fluridone+Formulation+Against+Eurasian+Watermilfoil+and+Nontarget+Submersed+Plants&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 - Demonstration Project on Dredging and Marsh Development Using a Flexible-Discharge Dustpan Dredge at Head of Passes/Southwest Pass Mississippi River AN - 19444194; 7170622 AB - The navigation channel of the Mississippi River in the vicinity of the Head of Passes (HOP) downstream of New Orleans is an area where significant dynamic shoaling occurs. During the traditional high-water period in the spring, the shoaling in this area occurs rapidly and can represent a hazard to deep-draft vessel traffic. The shoaling must be removed rapidly to maintain adequate channel depth. Currently, dredging of the channel at HOP is conducted using hopper dredges, primarily due to their mobility. Hydraulic dredges with conventional spudding systems and floating discharge pipelines, such as cutterhead dredges, are considered a safety hazard in this area due to their inability to rapidly (and consistently) move out of the way of vessel traffic. Unfortunately, hopper dredges simply move the dredged material out of the channel and redeposit it in open-water disposal sites at the heads of Pass A Loutre and South Pass. There are two disadvantages to this technique. First, the disposal sites periodically become so filled with material that the hoppers cannot bottom dump dredged material at the sites. The dredged material must be handled again at additional cost to provide sites for hopper disposal. Secondly, there is no beneficial use of the dredged material. Hopper dredges can use direct pump-out to place material beneficially in adjacent shallow open-water areas for marsh restoration, but this is considered costly and has never been done before at the HOP. This report presents the demonstration results of the dustpan dredge Beachbuilder using a flexible discharge at the Head of Passes/Southwest Pass on the Mississippi River in June 2002. Dustpan dredges equipped with a flexible-discharge floating hose and sufficient pumping capacity potentially have the mobility required for safe passage of vessel traffic and can economically pump dredged material the distances required for placement in a beneficial use scenario such as marsh construction. This report details and discusses the project activities, operational characteristics of the Beachbuilder, and feasibility of using a flexible-discharge dustpan dredge to augment the hydraulic dredging capabilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Mississippi and other rivers. The goal of this report is to use the project results to identify potential opportunities for reducing overall costs for channel maintenance and increasing beneficial use of dredged materials during dredging Corps navigation projects. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Welp, T L AU - Clausner, JE AU - Thompson, D AU - Mujica, J AU - Boddie, G AD - Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - June 2004 VL - TR-04 IS - 3 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Feasibility studies KW - Hydraulics KW - Mobility KW - Freshwater KW - Beneficial Use KW - Restoration KW - Dredges KW - Costs KW - Disposal sites KW - Hazards KW - Pumping KW - Pipelines KW - Rivers KW - River discharge KW - Marshes KW - Navigation KW - USA, Louisiana, New Orleans KW - Maintenance KW - Channels KW - Floating hoses KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - USA, Louisiana, Southwest Pass KW - traffic KW - navigation KW - downstream KW - Shoaling KW - Dredging KW - Pumps KW - USA, Louisiana, Head of Passes KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - SW 3060:Water treatment and distribution KW - P 4000:WASTE MANAGEMENT UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444194?accountid=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=Technical+Reports.+U.S.+Army+Engineer+Waterways+Experiment+Station%2C+Environmental+Laboratory&rft.atitle=Demonstration+Project+on+Dredging+and+Marsh+Development+Using+a+Flexible-Discharge+Dustpan+Dredge+at+Head+of+Passes%2FSouthwest+Pass+Mississippi+River&rft.au=Welp%2C+T+L%3BClausner%2C+JE%3BThompson%2C+D%3BMujica%2C+J%3BBoddie%2C+G&rft.aulast=Welp&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=TR-04&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Technical+Reports.+U.S.+Army+Engineer+Waterways+Experiment+Station%2C+Environmental+Laboratory&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rivers; Hydraulics; River discharge; Marshes; Navigation; Dredges; Restoration; Hazards; Floating hoses; Shoaling; Dredging; Pipelines; Pumping; Feasibility studies; Disposal sites; Channels; traffic; Mobility; navigation; downstream; Pumps; Maintenance; Costs; Beneficial Use; USA, Louisiana, Southwest Pass; North America, Mississippi R.; USA, Louisiana, New Orleans; USA, Louisiana, Head of Passes; Freshwater ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Water-Quality Changes During Cycle Tests at Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) Systems of South Florida AN - 19442716; 7170604 AB - Water-quality changes were interpreted from existing cycle test data obtained from 11 treated surface-water Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) systems located in South Florida. Six ASR systems are located along the lower east coast (Palm Beach and Broward Counties), and five ASR systems are located in Lee and Collier Counties. These diverse data sets were the basis for interpretations of water-quality changes during ASR cycles in different regions. These data sets were interpreted to provide guidance for cycle test performance at Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) ASR pilot sites. ASR and monitoring well data were interpreted for trends in water-quality changes. Estimates of reaction rates or half-lives are based only on data obtained from monitoring wells during storage. Analytes that are reactants or products in major geochemical reactions are: dissolved oxygen, nitrate and ammonia, sulfate and hydrogen sulfide, gross alpha radioactivity and radium isotopes, and total trihalo-methanes. Concentrations of these solutes in recovered water samples from recharge/recovery wells were compared to state and Federal water quality regulations to identify regulatory exceedences. Concentrations of arsenic and gross alpha in recovered water sometimes exceeded regulatory criteria at ASR sites in Southwest Florida. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Mirecki, JE Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - Jun 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Aquifers KW - ASW, USA, Florida, Palm Beach KW - water quality KW - USA, Florida KW - Water sampling KW - Water Analysis KW - Surface water KW - ASW, USA, Florida, Collier Cty. KW - Dissolved oxygen KW - ASW, USA, Florida, Everglades KW - Radioactivity KW - Nitrates KW - Well Data KW - Ammonia KW - Geochemistry KW - Radium KW - Hydrogen sulfide KW - Storage KW - Wells KW - Water Storage KW - Aquifer Testing KW - Geohydrology KW - ASW, USA, Florida, Broward Cty. KW - Groundwater KW - Monitoring 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/19442716?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=Mirecki%2C+JE&rft.aulast=Mirecki&rft.aufirst=JE&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Water-Quality+Changes+During+Cycle+Tests+at+Aquifer+Storage+Recovery+%28ASR%29+Systems+of+South+Florida&rft.title=Water-Quality+Changes+During+Cycle+Tests+at+Aquifer+Storage+Recovery+%28ASR%29+Systems+of+South+Florida&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 - Ponding Duration, Ponding Frequency, And Field Indicators: A Case Study On Three California, USA, Playas AN - 17487989; 6053237 AB - Playas are temporarily ponded, shallow, intermittent lakes found in the arid southwest United States formed by rainfall and runoff in the wet season. Because playas are considered 'Waters of the United States' (WoUS) under Federal Regulations 33 CFR 328.3 [a], their jurisdictional extent is delineated by either observation of ponded water or physical characteristics that represent ordinary high water marks that remain after the water has receded. To date, no surface hydrologic studies have described the frequency and duration of ponded water within desert playa systems to facilitate the understanding of 'ordinary' for delineation purposes. To establish a baseline to support further the concept of 'ordinary,' we used 20 years of historical satellite imagery of playas in the western Mojave Desert, California, in combination with 59 years of precipitation records, to provide a case study of frequency and duration of ponding in playas in the arid southwestern United States. Ponding was found to occur for at least 16 days, with a frequency of 51% or approximately every other year. We estimated the average antecedent precipitation needed to initiate ponding to be 8.29 cm. In years when rainfall exceeded 8.29 cm between October and March, the playas also ponded for 16 days into the growing season (March-November). The total length of the ponding period through the wet season ranged between 1 and 32 weeks, with a predictable relationship between length of inundation and total rainfall during the wet season. This range of occurrence of ponded water on these arid playas expresses the climatically unevenly distributed precipitation pattern, both spatial and temporally. Analysis of the ponding duration and frequency from this study site acts as a baseline for further refinement of the concept of ordinary high water and provides a basis for further development of field indicators for delineation purposes of arid southwestern playas. JF - Wetlands AU - Lichvar, R AU - Gustina, G AU - Bolus, R AD - Engineering Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory 72 Lyme Road Hanover, New Hampshire, USA 03755, Robert.W.Lichvar@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/06// PY - 2004 DA - June 2004 SP - 406 EP - 413 PB - The Society of Wetland Scientists VL - 24 IS - 2 SN - 0277-5212, 0277-5212 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Remote Sensing KW - Intermittent Lakes KW - Temporary ponds KW - Rainfall KW - Ecological distribution KW - Indicators KW - Freshwater KW - Spatial variations KW - Lakes KW - Rainy season KW - Playas KW - Wetlands KW - Frequency KW - Atmospheric precipitations KW - Satellite Technology KW - Rainfall-runoff Relationships KW - Temporal variations KW - Case Studies KW - Climate KW - Precipitation KW - High Water Mark KW - Ponding KW - Satellite sensing KW - USA, California, Mojave Desert KW - Deserts KW - Flooding KW - Runoff KW - Q1 08463:Habitat community studies KW - SW 0810:General KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17487989?accountid=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=Wetlands&rft.atitle=Ponding+Duration%2C+Ponding+Frequency%2C+And+Field+Indicators%3A+A+Case+Study+On+Three+California%2C+USA%2C+Playas&rft.au=Lichvar%2C+R%3BGustina%2C+G%3BBolus%2C+R&rft.aulast=Lichvar&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=406&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Wetlands&rft.issn=02775212&rft_id=info:doi/10.1043%2F0277-5212%282004%290242.0.CO%3B2 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atmospheric precipitations; Temporal variations; Ecological distribution; Rainfall; Temporary ponds; Climate; Indicators; Spatial variations; Satellite sensing; Lakes; Rainy season; Deserts; Playas; Wetlands; Frequency; Runoff; Remote Sensing; Ponding; Intermittent Lakes; Satellite Technology; Rainfall-runoff Relationships; Case Studies; Flooding; Precipitation; High Water Mark; USA, California, Mojave Desert; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1043/0277-5212(2004)024<0406:PDPFAF>2.0.CO;2 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERNAN LAKE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ID PFH 80), KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36430104; 10806 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 is the most heavily used road on 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 sufffers from the poorest conditions of all the roads it maintains. The road lacks stormwater treatment facilities to protect the quality of water in Fernan Lake and Creek. This draft 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 stormwater 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.). JF - EPA number: 040253, 261 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-04-01-D 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/36430104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-25&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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERNAN LAKE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ID PFH 80), KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FERNAN LAKE ROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ID PFH 80), KOOTENAI COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 36369689; 10806-040253_0001 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 is the most heavily used road on 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 sufffers from the poorest conditions of all the roads it maintains. The road lacks stormwater treatment facilities to protect the quality of water in Fernan Lake and Creek. This draft 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 stormwater 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.). JF - EPA number: 040253, 261 pages and maps, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-04-01-D 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/36369689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT LNG PROJECT, FREEPORT LNG DEVELOPMENT, L.P., QUINTANA ISLAND, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS (DOCKET NO. CP03-75-000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FREEPORT LNG PROJECT, FREEPORT LNG DEVELOPMENT, L.P., QUINTANA ISLAND, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS (DOCKET NO. CP03-75-000). AN - 36367339; 10807-040254_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facility on Quintana Island southeast of the city of Freeport in Brazoria County, Texas are proposed. Freeport LNG Development, L.P. proposes to construct and operate a new LNG import terminal, including an LNG tanker docking and unloading service facilities. In addition Freeport LNG would construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities in Brazoira County. More specifically, Freeport LNG would construct an LNG ship maneuvering area; a protected single berth unloading dock, equipped with three liquid unloading arms and one vapor return arm and mooring and breasting dolphins; a reconfigured storm protection levee and a permanent access road; two 26-inch-diameter double-walled stainless steel vacuum insulated LNG transfer lines and one 16-inch-diameter vapor return line; ancillary service pipelines; two double-walled LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal capacity of just over 1.0 million barrels (3.5 billion cubic feet of gas equivalent); six 3,240-gallon-per-minute (gpm) in-tank pumps; seven 2,315-gpm, high-pressure booster pumps; three boil-off gas compressors and a boil-off gas condensing system; six high-pressure LNG vaporizers using a primary closed-circuit water /glycol solution heated with 12 water/glycol boilers during cold weather and a set of intermediate heat exchangers using a secondary circulating water system heated by an air tower during warm weather, and circulation pumps for both systems; two natural gas superheaters and two fuel gas heaters; and a fire response system, a natural gas flare system, a construction dock, utilities, buildings, access roadways, and service facilities. The associated pipeline system in Brazoria County would consist of 9.6 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from the LNG terminal to the proposed Stratton Ridge Meter Station as well as pig-launcher, pig-receiver, and metering facilities. In addition to Freeport LNG's proposal, this final EIS considers a No-Action Alternative and a postponed action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port terminal would provide facilities necessary to deliver imported LNG to shippers, including Dow Chemical Company, at the proposed Stratton Ridge Meter Station by 2007. The proposed facilities would re-vaporize up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas and transport the product to the Texas intrastate market. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect 296 acres of land and water, including 188.2 acres to be developed for the LNG terminal and 107.8 acres to be developed for the pipeline system. Approximately 119.7 acres at the LNG terminal would be displaced by permanent facilities, the remainder being affected only by temporary construction areas. Following construction of the pipeline, approximately 41.4 acres, including 3.8 acres of grassland/pasture at the Stratton Ridge Meter Station, would be retained as permanent rights-of-way. Approximately 80.9 acres of wetlands would be affected, including 42.6 acres that would be permanently displaced. Approximately 201 acres of vegetation would be disturbed, including 103.3 acres that would be permanently displaced. The terminal facility would lie in an area affected by subsidence; measures would be taken to address this potential problem. Shoreline erosion problems in the area could be exacerbated by construction and operation of the terminal. Hydric soils present throughout the site and along the pipeline route would be replaced by upland soils. The pipeline would traverse four perennial waterbodies and two intermittent waterbodies. One residence would be relocated or demolished prior to the construction of the marine berth on Quintana Island, and 13 residences would lie within 50 feet of the construction work areas for the pipeline. A county boat ramp and the Xeriscape Park on the island would also be relocated. The LNG storage tanks and other LNG terminal facilities would impinge visually on the surrounding area. Thermal impacts of terminal operation could be significant. Cultural resource surveys have not yet been undertaken. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a 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 04-0125D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040254, 698 pages, May 25, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0164F KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Erosion Control KW - Harbor Structures KW - Islands KW - Natural Gas KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Subsidence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Quintana Island KW - Texas KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing 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/36367339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+LNG+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT+LNG+DEVELOPMENT%2C+L.P.%2C+QUINTANA+ISLAND%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP03-75-000%29.&rft.title=FREEPORT+LNG+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT+LNG+DEVELOPMENT%2C+L.P.%2C+QUINTANA+ISLAND%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP03-75-000%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 - Final. Preparation date: May 25, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-69 SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 13, ELDORADO TO MCGEHEE, ARKANSAS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - I-69 SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 13, ELDORADO TO MCGEHEE, ARKANSAS. AN - 36363591; 10790-040238_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of approximately 100 miles four-lane, divided controlled access freeway on new alignment within the I-69 corridor from US 82 near El Dorado to US 65 near McGehee in Arkansas is proposed. The project would constitute a segment of Corridor 18, which is a Congressionally-designated High Priority Transportation Corridor that will be designated as I-69. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended Corridor 18 from Canada to Mexico. Certain segments of the roadway would be constructed on new location, while other segments would follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The overall corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs), SIUs are independent highway sections that are considered to be usable and involve a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no other sections of I-69 were constructed. The proposed project discussed in this draft EIS is SIU 13, which extends approximately 110 miles and encompasses portions of Columbia, Ouachita, Union, Calhoun, Bradley, Ashley, Drew, Chicot, and Desha counties. The corridor study involved the development of four full-length corridors, two miles in with within the project area. A multi-corridor combination with the preferred corridor was identified to provide the best opportunity to develop highway alignments to avoid or minimize impacts, and additional alignments were developed to enhance transportation services and economic vitality in the area. Five alignment alternatives were developed within the preferred corridor. The alignments are each divided into five sections. A No Action Alternative is also considered in this draft EIS. Depending on the alignment selected, total costs of the project range from $754.0 million to $765.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall I-69 project would provide an adequate corridor for the movement of freight between Canada and Mexico, improve international and interstate trade, increase regional accessibility, and improve transportation system linkages. Existing and anticipated traffic demands would be accommodated by the provision of a high-speed, access-controlled facility that would be responsive to traffic usage and enhance access between communities and routes within the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three to 16 residences, 270 to 350 acres of wetlands, up to 34 acres of habitat for the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker, 769 to 856 acres of 100-year floodplain, 2,104 to 2,517 acres of prime farmland, and 145 to 299 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The project would affect two to four known archaeological sites and would traverse 634 to 769 acres of land with a high probability of containing unknown sites. Two alignments would affect one historic site. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 15 to 27 sensitive receptor sites. One alignment would travel an active gas oil/natural gas well site. LEGAL MANDATES: Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 040238, 317 pages and maps, May 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/36363591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-69+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+13%2C+ELDORADO+TO+MCGEHEE%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=I-69+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+13%2C+ELDORADO+TO+MCGEHEE%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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-69 SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY 13, ELDORADO TO MCGEHEE, ARKANSAS. AN - 16358998; 10790 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of approximately 100 miles four-lane, divided controlled access freeway on new alignment within the I-69 corridor from US 82 near El Dorado to US 65 near McGehee in Arkansas is proposed. The project would constitute a segment of Corridor 18, which is a Congressionally-designated High Priority Transportation Corridor that will be designated as I-69. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended Corridor 18 from Canada to Mexico. Certain segments of the roadway would be constructed on new location, while other segments would follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The overall corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs), SIUs are independent highway sections that are considered to be usable and involve a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no other sections of I-69 were constructed. The proposed project discussed in this draft EIS is SIU 13, which extends approximately 110 miles and encompasses portions of Columbia, Ouachita, Union, Calhoun, Bradley, Ashley, Drew, Chicot, and Desha counties. The corridor study involved the development of four full-length corridors, two miles in with within the project area. A multi-corridor combination with the preferred corridor was identified to provide the best opportunity to develop highway alignments to avoid or minimize impacts, and additional alignments were developed to enhance transportation services and economic vitality in the area. Five alignment alternatives were developed within the preferred corridor. The alignments are each divided into five sections. A No Action Alternative is also considered in this draft EIS. Depending on the alignment selected, total costs of the project range from $754.0 million to $765.6 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall I-69 project would provide an adequate corridor for the movement of freight between Canada and Mexico, improve international and interstate trade, increase regional accessibility, and improve transportation system linkages. Existing and anticipated traffic demands would be accommodated by the provision of a high-speed, access-controlled facility that would be responsive to traffic usage and enhance access between communities and routes within the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would result in the displacement of three to 16 residences, 270 to 350 acres of wetlands, up to 34 acres of habitat for the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker, 769 to 856 acres of 100-year floodplain, 2,104 to 2,517 acres of prime farmland, and 145 to 299 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The project would affect two to four known archaeological sites and would traverse 634 to 769 acres of land with a high probability of containing unknown sites. Two alignments would affect one historic site. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards at 15 to 27 sensitive receptor sites. One alignment would travel an active gas oil/natural gas well site. LEGAL MANDATES: Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. JF - EPA number: 040238, 317 pages and maps, May 18, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arkansas KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, 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/16358998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-69+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+13%2C+ELDORADO+TO+MCGEHEE%2C+ARKANSAS.&rft.title=I-69+SECTION+OF+INDEPENDENT+UTILITY+13%2C+ELDORADO+TO+MCGEHEE%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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2002). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2002). AN - 36362069; 10780-040228_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane fully controlled access highway, designed to interstate standards, on new location bypaasing existing US 412 north of Springdale in Benton and 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. This supplement to the draft EIS of January 2002 considers 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. 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, see 02-0198D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040228, 401 pages and maps, May 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-01-01-D 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 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/36362069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-13&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+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2002%29.&rft.title=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2002%29.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPRINGDALE NORTHERN BYPASS, U.S. HIGHWAY 412, BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2002). AN - 16361406; 10780 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a four-lane fully controlled access highway, designed to interstate standards, on new location bypaasing existing US 412 north of Springdale in Benton and 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. This supplement to the draft EIS of January 2002 considers 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. 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, see 02-0198D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040228, 401 pages and maps, May 13, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AR-EIS-01-01-D 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 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/16361406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-13&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+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2002%29.&rft.title=SPRINGDALE+NORTHERN+BYPASS%2C+U.S.+HIGHWAY+412%2C+BENTON+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+ARKANSAS+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2002%29.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36364819; 10776-040224_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $326 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplansd and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres of wetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these waterbodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species, including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, funes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541) JF - EPA number: 040224, Draft EIS--444 pages, Appendices--721 pages, May 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Housing KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Salinity KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36360877; 10776-040224_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $326 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplansd and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres of wetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these waterbodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species, including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, funes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541) JF - EPA number: 040224, Draft EIS--444 pages, Appendices--721 pages, May 7, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Housing KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Salinity KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36360877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES ECOSYSTEM RESTORTAION, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16347404; 10776 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration plan for the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE) in southwestern Collier County, Florida is proposed as part of the comprehensive Everglades restoration plan. Collier County is one of the fastest growing counties in the nation. The subdivision is located in the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, north of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, east of the South Belle Meade State Conservation and Recreation Lands project, west of the Fakahatchee Strad State Preserve, and northeast of Collier-Seminole State Park. Roads, canals, and other infrastructure within the 55,247-acre SGGE residential development constructed by the Gulf American Corporation in the 1960s and early 1970s have seriously disrupted ecosystem functioning in the area. Approximately 279 miles of roads and 48 miles of canals placed in the area cut off historic sheetflow hydrology, drained study area wetlands, caused freshwater surge flows into Faka Union Bay, disrupted salinity regimes in other bays of the Ten Thousand Islands Region, reduced aquifer recharge, increased the frequency and intensity of forest fires, diminished habitat for threatened and endangered species, accelerated the invasion of exotic species, and dramatically changed the vegetative communities from wetland to upland. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively preferred alternative (Alternative 3D) would plug 42 canals and replace this conveyance capability with three pump stations at the north end of the project area; remove 227 miles of subdivision roads; construct five levee systems to protect certain developed areas from flooding, and placement of culverts in each of the levee systems to allow for interior drainage. Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $326 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ecosystem restoration plan would reinstate the area's pre-drainage hydrology and ecology. Centered within the surround affected public uplansd and draining into affected portions of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary, the restored area would enormously enhance habitat connectivity and act as a keystone to restoration of the adjacent public lands. Over 36,200 acres of wetland would be added to the area. The number of available hydrology habitat units would increase by 29,000, and 11,800 biotic habitat units would be added to the area. An further 5,000 hydrology habitat units and 3,800 biotic habitat units would be added to adjacent areas. Discharge of fresh water from the canal system into Faka Union Bay would decline by 790,00 acre-feet per month to 7,000 acre-feet per month during September, the peak of the wet season. Approximately 7.3 habitat units of oyster reef would be added in three of the estuaries most affected by SGGE development, a 1,200 percent increase over current conditions. Open water fish would benefit from an additional 500 habitat units, a 1,400 percent increase. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The filling and plugging of canals would displace flora and fauna currently inhabiting these waterbodies. Construction activities would result in the removal of native vegetation. Soil disturbances resulting from construction activities would increase the risk of the spread of exotic, invasive species, including Melaleuca, cogon grass, and Brazilian pepper. Noise, funes, and human presence could disturb roosting of foraging wading birds and waterfowl. Sunfish, Tarpon, amphibians, and reptiles could suffer temporary increases in mortality. The removal of the canals would eliminate functional fire breaks. LEGAL MANDATES: Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (P.L. 102-58), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 102-58), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-541) JF - EPA number: 040224, Draft EIS--444 pages, Appendices--721 pages, May 7, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Estuaries KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fires KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Housing KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pumping Plants KW - Roads KW - Salinity KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Everglades KW - Florida KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16347404?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SOUTHERN+GOLDEN+GATE+ESTATES+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORTAION%2C+COLLIER+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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 7, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69 FROM THE INTERSTATE 55/MS 304 INTERCHANGE IN HERNANDO, MISSISSIPPI TO THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 51 AND TN STATE ROUTE 385 IN MILLINGTON, TENNESSEE, DESOTO AND MARSHALL COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI AND SHELBY AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTERSTATE 69 FROM THE INTERSTATE 55/MS 304 INTERCHANGE IN HERNANDO, MISSISSIPPI TO THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 51 AND TN STATE ROUTE 385 IN MILLINGTON, TENNESSEE, DESOTO AND MARSHALL COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI AND SHELBY AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 36364897; 10775-040223_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 40-mile segment of Interstate 69 (I-69) from the I-55/State Route (SR) 304 interchange in Hernando, Mississippi to the intersection of US 51 and SR 385 in Millington, Tennessee, DeSoto and Marshall counties, Mississippi and Shelby and Fayette counties, Tennessee is proposed. The project would constitute a segment of Corridor 18, which is a Congressionally-designated High Priority Transportation Corridor that will be designated as I-69. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended Corridor 18 from Canada to Mexico. Certain segments of the roadway would be constructed on new location, while other segments would follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The overall corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs), SIUs are independent highway sections that are considered to be usable and involve a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no other sections of I-69 were constructed. The proposed project discussed in this draft EIS is SIU 9. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, a systems approach alternative, and the proposed action, are considered in this EIS. Five alignment alternatives for I-69 are also considered. Alternative A would begin at the new I-55/MS 304 interchange and follow I-55, I-240, and I-40/240 through Memphis to SR 300. The existing interstate cross-sections through this area vary from six to eight lanes. At the SR/US 51 interchange, I-69 would follow one of two new location alternatives to the intersection of US 51 and SR 385 in Millington. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall I-69 project would provide an adequate corridor for the movement of freight between Canada and Mexico, improve international and interstate trade, increase regional accessibility, and improve transportation system linkages. Existing and anticipated traffic demands would be accommodated by the provision of a high-speed, access-controlled facility that would be responsive to traffic usage and enhance access between communities and routes within the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 739 to 1,552 acres of rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 21 to 60 family residences, one to six businesses, 95 to 497 acres of farmland, and six to 69 acres of wetlands. The alignment would traverse 20 to 46 streams and forested wildlife habitat. From nine to 20 recorded archaeological sites would be disturbed. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040223, 321 pages and maps, May 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364897?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69+FROM+THE+INTERSTATE+55%2FMS+304+INTERCHANGE+IN+HERNANDO%2C+MISSISSIPPI+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51+AND+TN+STATE+ROUTE+385+IN+MILLINGTON%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+DESOTO+AND+MARSHALL+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+AND+SHELBY+AND+FAYETTE+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69+FROM+THE+INTERSTATE+55%2FMS+304+INTERCHANGE+IN+HERNANDO%2C+MISSISSIPPI+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51+AND+TN+STATE+ROUTE+385+IN+MILLINGTON%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+DESOTO+AND+MARSHALL+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+AND+SHELBY+AND+FAYETTE+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: May 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UMR-IWW SYSTEM NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, [Part 1 of 1] T2 - UMR-IWW SYSTEM NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, AN - 36364758; 10773-040221_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 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 draft 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 logs 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). JF - EPA number: 040221, 671 pages, CD-ROM, May 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging 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/36364758?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UMR-IWW+SYSTEM+NAVIGATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C&rft.title=UMR-IWW+SYSTEM+NAVIGATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C&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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 69 FROM THE INTERSTATE 55/MS 304 INTERCHANGE IN HERNANDO, MISSISSIPPI TO THE INTERSECTION OF U.S. 51 AND TN STATE ROUTE 385 IN MILLINGTON, TENNESSEE, DESOTO AND MARSHALL COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI AND SHELBY AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE. AN - 16360940; 10775 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 40-mile segment of Interstate 69 (I-69) from the I-55/State Route (SR) 304 interchange in Hernando, Mississippi to the intersection of US 51 and SR 385 in Millington, Tennessee, DeSoto and Marshall counties, Mississippi and Shelby and Fayette counties, Tennessee is proposed. The project would constitute a segment of Corridor 18, which is a Congressionally-designated High Priority Transportation Corridor that will be designated as I-69. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended Corridor 18 from Canada to Mexico. Certain segments of the roadway would be constructed on new location, while other segments would follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The overall corridor has been divided into 32 Sections of Independent Utility (SIUs), SIUs are independent highway sections that are considered to be usable and involve a reasonable expenditure of public funds even if no other sections of I-69 were constructed. The proposed project discussed in this draft EIS is SIU 9. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, a systems approach alternative, and the proposed action, are considered in this EIS. Five alignment alternatives for I-69 are also considered. Alternative A would begin at the new I-55/MS 304 interchange and follow I-55, I-240, and I-40/240 through Memphis to SR 300. The existing interstate cross-sections through this area vary from six to eight lanes. At the SR/US 51 interchange, I-69 would follow one of two new location alternatives to the intersection of US 51 and SR 385 in Millington. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The overall I-69 project would provide an adequate corridor for the movement of freight between Canada and Mexico, improve international and interstate trade, increase regional accessibility, and improve transportation system linkages. Existing and anticipated traffic demands would be accommodated by the provision of a high-speed, access-controlled facility that would be responsive to traffic usage and enhance access between communities and routes within the I-69 corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 739 to 1,552 acres of rights-of-way would result in the displacement of 21 to 60 family residences, one to six businesses, 95 to 497 acres of farmland, and six to 69 acres of wetlands. The alignment would traverse 20 to 46 streams and forested wildlife habitat. From nine to 20 recorded archaeological sites would be disturbed. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040223, 321 pages and maps, May 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mississippi KW - Tennessee KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16360940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+69+FROM+THE+INTERSTATE+55%2FMS+304+INTERCHANGE+IN+HERNANDO%2C+MISSISSIPPI+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51+AND+TN+STATE+ROUTE+385+IN+MILLINGTON%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+DESOTO+AND+MARSHALL+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+AND+SHELBY+AND+FAYETTE+COUNTIES%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+69+FROM+THE+INTERSTATE+55%2FMS+304+INTERCHANGE+IN+HERNANDO%2C+MISSISSIPPI+TO+THE+INTERSECTION+OF+U.S.+51+AND+TN+STATE+ROUTE+385+IN+MILLINGTON%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+DESOTO+AND+MARSHALL+COUNTIES%2C+MISSISSIPPI+AND+SHELBY+AND+FAYETTE+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: May 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UMR-IWW SYSTEM NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, AN - 16344604; 10773 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 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 draft 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 logs 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). JF - EPA number: 040221, 671 pages, CD-ROM, May 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging 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/16344604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-05-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UMR-IWW+SYSTEM+NAVIGATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C&rft.title=UMR-IWW+SYSTEM+NAVIGATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C&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 - Draft. Preparation date: May 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The responses of selected terrestrial plants to short (<12 days) and long term (2, 4 and 6 weeks) hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) exposure. Part I: Growth and developmental effects. AN - 66840474; 15344514 AB - Soils contaminated with explosive materials like hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) is a concern nation-wide on military installations and sites where explosives are manufactured, stored, or disposed. Terrestrial plants are a vital group of receptor organism, yet limited published information is available on the potential impacts of RDX exposure in terrestrial plants. This research comprised the initial phases in the development of a short-term (<12 days) screening experiment for assessing the environmental impacts of RDX exposure in terrestrial plants. Fifteen plants (dicots and monocots) were exposed to three soils amended with 0-4000 microg g(-1) of RDX during the short-term screening experiments. Growth responses (maximum root and shoot lengths, percent emergence) and adverse developmental effects were the assessment endpoints. Sunflower was identified as the most RDX sensitive plant and selected for evaluation during the long-term (2, 4, and 6 weeks) experiments. Two life stages of sunflower (embryos and 2-week old seedlings) were exposed to Grenada soil amended with 0-100 microg g(-1) of RDX. The assessment endpoints during the long-term experiments included: biomass, maximum shoot and root length, root bio-volume, maximum stem diameter, number of leaves, and adverse developmental effects. Statistically significant differences were measured in several of the growth parameters following the short and long term exposure studies, however there were no consistent patterns. The consistent indicators of detrimental impacts from RDX exposure were the adverse developmental effects observed, regardless of life stage, soil type, or exposure duration. Typically, more adverse developmental effects were observed in dicots than monocots. The efficacy of the short-term screening experiments for estimating the impacts of long-term RDX exposure was validated. JF - Ecotoxicology (London, England) AU - Winfield, Linda E AU - Rodgers, John H AU - D'Surney, Stephen J AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, EP-R, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. Linda.E.Winfield@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 SP - 335 EP - 347 VL - 13 IS - 4 SN - 0963-9292, 0963-9292 KW - Hazardous Waste KW - 0 KW - Soil Pollutants KW - Triazines KW - hexahydro-1,3,5-triethyl-s-triazine KW - 7779-27-3 KW - Index Medicus KW - Military Personnel KW - Humans KW - Toxicity Tests KW - Mississippi KW - Seedlings KW - Triazines -- toxicity KW - Soil Pollutants -- toxicity KW - Helianthus UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/66840474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ecotoxicology+%28London%2C+England%29&rft.atitle=The+responses+of+selected+terrestrial+plants+to+short+%28%26lt%3B12+days%29+and+long+term+%282%2C+4+and+6+weeks%29+hexahydro-1%2C3%2C5-trinitro-1%2C3%2C5-triazine+%28RDX%29+exposure.+Part+I%3A+Growth+and+developmental+effects.&rft.au=Winfield%2C+Linda+E%3BRodgers%2C+John+H%3BD%27Surney%2C+Stephen+J&rft.aulast=Winfield&rft.aufirst=Linda&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=335&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecotoxicology+%28London%2C+England%29&rft.issn=09639292&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2004-11-15 N1 - Date created - 2004-09-03 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Wilmington Harbor deepening, Cape Fear River, southeastern North Carolina, geotechnical considerations AN - 51783063; 2004-083993 JF - Southeastern Geology AU - Harris, W Burleigh AU - Haw, Tong Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 SP - 279 EP - 294 PB - Duke University, Department of Geology, Durham, NC VL - 42 IS - 4 SN - 0038-3678, 0038-3678 KW - United States KW - Wilmington North Carolina KW - harbors KW - channels KW - New Hanover County North Carolina KW - rock mechanics KW - dredging KW - North Carolina KW - waterways KW - Cape Fear River KW - construction KW - Atlantic Coastal Plain KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51783063?accountid=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=Southeastern+Geology&rft.atitle=Wilmington+Harbor+deepening%2C+Cape+Fear+River%2C+southeastern+North+Carolina%2C+geotechnical+considerations&rft.au=Harris%2C+W+Burleigh%3BHaw%2C+Tong&rft.aulast=Harris&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=279&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeastern+Geology&rft.issn=00383678&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.southeasterngeology.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 17 N1 - PubXState - NC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - SOGEAY N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Coastal Plain; Cape Fear River; channels; construction; dredging; harbors; New Hanover County North Carolina; North Carolina; rock mechanics; United States; waterways; Wilmington North Carolina ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geologic and tectonic history of the western Snake River plain, Idaho and Oregon AN - 51721440; 2005-033627 JF - Bulletin - Idaho Geological Survey AU - Wood, Spencer H AU - Clemens, Drew M A2 - Bonnichsen, Bill A2 - White, Craig M. A2 - McCurry, Michael Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 SP - 69 EP - 104 PB - University of Idaho, Idaho Geological Survey, Moscow, ID KW - United States KW - lithostratigraphy KW - Chalk Hills Formation KW - volcanic rocks KW - igneous rocks KW - surficial geology KW - Cenozoic KW - Oregon KW - volcanism KW - stratigraphic units KW - tectonics KW - batholiths KW - faults KW - Idaho KW - Glenns Ferry Formation KW - Quaternary KW - rift zones KW - Yellowstone Hot Spot KW - Terteling Spring Formation KW - half grabens KW - Tertiary KW - intrusions KW - Neogene KW - Snake River plain KW - 16:Structural geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51721440?accountid=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=Bulletin+-+Idaho+Geological+Survey&rft.atitle=Geologic+and+tectonic+history+of+the+western+Snake+River+plain%2C+Idaho+and+Oregon&rft.au=Wood%2C+Spencer+H%3BClemens%2C+Drew+M&rft.aulast=Wood&rft.aufirst=Spencer&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=69&rft.isbn=1557650292&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+-+Idaho+Geological+Survey&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.idahogeology.org/Products/reverselook.asp?switch=pubs&value=B LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 130 N1 - PubXState - ID N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., 2 tables, geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06513 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - batholiths; Cenozoic; Chalk Hills Formation; faults; Glenns Ferry Formation; half grabens; Idaho; igneous rocks; intrusions; lithostratigraphy; Neogene; Oregon; Quaternary; rift zones; Snake River plain; stratigraphic units; surficial geology; tectonics; Terteling Spring Formation; Tertiary; United States; volcanic rocks; volcanism; Yellowstone Hot Spot ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in El Dorado Lake, Kansas: A Case Study AN - 19444627; 7170602 AB - The overall objective of the project was to begin restoration of spawning and nursery fishery habitat for the sunfish family (largemouth bass, crappie, and bluegill) lost from flood control operations (seasonal drawdowns) in El Dorado Lake, Kansas. When initially impounded, flooded terrestrial structure provided good habitat for the sunfish fishery. As flood control operations were implemented, habitat structure (primarily flooded trees and brush) degraded, leaving the lake poorly suited for this fishery. The loss of structure also contributed to increases in turbidity, further affecting the sunfish fishery. Specific objectives of the project were to: (a) evaluate the suitability of several emergent, floating-leaved, and submersed aquatic plant species for establishment in the lake; (b) develop and test effective methods for establishing desirable aquatic plant species; and (c) establish founder colonies of aquatic plants in several areas of the lake. In addition to providing immediate nursery habitat for juvenile fish, these founder colonies were expected to provide propagules for natural spread to other areas of the lake. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Dick, GO AU - Smart, R M Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Flood control KW - Inland waters KW - Micropterus salmoides KW - Nursery grounds KW - Aquatic plants KW - Water resources KW - USA, Kansas KW - Freshwater KW - Freshwater fish KW - Lake Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Lakes KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Fishery management KW - Aquatic Habitats KW - Habitat improvement KW - Structure KW - Lepomis macrochirus KW - Fisheries KW - Greater Antilles, Puerto Rico, Dorado KW - Sunfish KW - Turbidity KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - SW 6090:Fisheries engineering UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444627?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=Dick%2C+GO%3BSmart%2C+R+M&rft.aulast=Dick&rft.aufirst=GO&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Aquatic+Vegetation+Restoration+in+El+Dorado+Lake%2C+Kansas%3A+A+Case+Study&rft.title=Aquatic+Vegetation+Restoration+in+El+Dorado+Lake%2C+Kansas%3A+A+Case+Study&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 - Aquatic Vegetation Restoration in Cooper Lake, Texas: A Case Study AN - 19444371; 7170601 AB - Aquatic plants improve water clarity and quality (James and Barko 1990) and reduce rates of shoreline erosion and sediment resuspension (James and Barko 1995). Further, aquatic plants provide valuable fish and wildlife habitat (Dibble et al. 1996) and serve as a food source for waterfowl and aquatic mammals. Native aquatic plants also help prevent spread of nuisance exotic plants (Smart et al. 1994), a role that has been of primary interest to the Aquatic Plant Control Research Program (APCRP). Because the research on aquatic plant establishment conducted under the APCRP represented the current "state of the art" (Smart et al. 1996), the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department solicited our involvement in the development of techniques (TPWD Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Initiative) for establishing aquatic plants for fish habitat improvement in Texas reservoirs. Because there is still much to learn regarding establishment of beneficial native plants, we elected to participate in this project and to incorporate testing and data collection in an attempt to further advance the science. This report documents the restoration project and describes what we learned in the process. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Dick, GO AU - Smart, R M AU - Smith, J K Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - aquatic mammals KW - Mammals KW - Resuspended sediments KW - Lakes KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Reservoirs KW - Nuisance KW - Sediment pollution KW - Data collection KW - habitat improvement KW - Coastal erosion KW - Laboratories KW - Wildlife KW - Aquatic plants KW - Vegetation KW - Data collections KW - Habitat KW - Erosion KW - waterfowl KW - Aquatic Habitats KW - Habitat improvement KW - Plants KW - Fish KW - USA, Texas KW - Waterways KW - Aquatic mammals KW - Research programs KW - Aquatic birds KW - SW 5010:Network design KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444371?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=Dick%2C+GO%3BSmart%2C+R+M%3BSmith%2C+J+K&rft.aulast=Dick&rft.aufirst=GO&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Aquatic+Vegetation+Restoration+in+Cooper+Lake%2C+Texas%3A+A+Case+Study&rft.title=Aquatic+Vegetation+Restoration+in+Cooper+Lake%2C+Texas%3A+A+Case+Study&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 - A Regional Guidebook for Applying the Hydrogeomorphic Approach to Assessing Wetland Functions of Depressional Wetlands in Peninsular Florida AN - 19442419; 7173684 AB - The Hydrogeomophic (HGM) Approach is a method for developing functional indices and the protocols used to apply these indices to the assessment of wetland functions at a site-specific scale. The HGM Approach was initially designed to be used in the context of the Clean Water Act Section 404 Regulatory Program permit review to analyze project alternatives, minimize impacts, assess unavoidable impacts, determine mitigation requirements, and monitor the success of compensatory mitigation. However, a variety of other potential uses have been identified, including the determination of minimal effects under the Food Security Act, design of wetland restoration projects, and management of wetlands. This report uses the HGM Approach to develop a Regional Guidebook to (a) characterize the Depressional Wetlands in Peninsular Florida, (b) provide the rationale used to select functions for the herbaceous and cypress dome subclasses, (c) provide the rationale used to select model variables and metrics, (d) provide the rationale used to develop assessment models, (e) provide data from reference wetlands and document its use in calibrating model variables and assessment models, and (f) outline the necessary protocols for applying the functional indices to the assessment of wetland functions. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Noble, C V AU - Clairain, EJ Jr AU - Evans, R AU - McGuire, M AU - Trott, K AU - Davis, M Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Domes KW - USA, Florida KW - Laboratories KW - Model Studies KW - Foods KW - Assessments KW - Habitat improvement KW - Reviews KW - Varieties KW - Clean Water Act KW - Wetlands KW - Waterways KW - Environment management KW - Q2 09284:Hydrodynamics, wave, current and ice forces KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19442419?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=Noble%2C+C+V%3BClairain%2C+EJ+Jr%3BEvans%2C+R%3BMcGuire%2C+M%3BTrott%2C+K%3BDavis%2C+M&rft.aulast=Noble&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=A+Regional+Guidebook+for+Applying+the+Hydrogeomorphic+Approach+to+Assessing+Wetland+Functions+of+Depressional+Wetlands+in+Peninsular+Florida&rft.title=A+Regional+Guidebook+for+Applying+the+Hydrogeomorphic+Approach+to+Assessing+Wetland+Functions+of+Depressional+Wetlands+in+Peninsular+Florida&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 - Risk Characterization for Future Training Scenarios at the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) AN - 19441238; 7173685 AB - This study was conducted to evaluate potential human and ecological health risks associated with emission of pyrotechnic compounds during future training exercises at the Massachusetts Military Reservation. Air dispersion modeling was used to determine air concentrations and deposition rates for emissions. Annual average and spatially averaged air concentrations and deposition rates were used to perform the risk assessments. The Army Risk Assessment Modeling System (ARAMS) was used to conduct the human health risk assessment, which evaluated a site visitor or trespasser exposed to air and soil using air concentrations and deposition rates from the air dispersion modeling. ARAMS was also used to evaluate the time for deposited compounds to reach groundwater and the peak concentration upon contact with the water table. Of the 24 compounds evaluated, only Cr(VI), with an incremental cancer risk of 2.4 x 10 super(-6), posed a potential concern for human health with the maximum exposure and effect through the air inhalation pathway/route. None of the compounds are suspected to cause a groundwater problem. Computed soil concentrations were compared to soil screening toxicity benchmarks for the ecological risk assessment for the purpose of retaining or eliminating chemicals from the assessment. Toluene and hexachlorobenzene were the only compounds that exceeded the soil toxicity benchmarks. However, because of the slight exceedence and its nonbio-accumulating properties, toluene is not considered to be a chemical of potential concern. Although hexachlorobenzene exceeded the toxicity benchmark, uncertainties and conservative assumptions associated with the modeled soil concentrations and conservative soil benchmarks should be recognized. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Zakikhani, M AU - Dortch AU - Coakley, S AU - Hawkins, M Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts; Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Inhalation KW - Chemicals KW - Risk assessment KW - USA, Massachusetts KW - Training KW - Toluene KW - Toxicity KW - Cancer KW - Soil KW - water table KW - benchmarks KW - Emissions KW - Military KW - Hexachlorobenzene KW - H 14000:Toxicology KW - P 6000:TOXICOLOGY AND HEALTH UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19441238?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=Zakikhani%2C+M%3BDortch%3BCoakley%2C+S%3BHawkins%2C+M&rft.aulast=Zakikhani&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Risk+Characterization+for+Future+Training+Scenarios+at+the+Massachusetts+Military+Reservation+%28MMR%29&rft.title=Risk+Characterization+for+Future+Training+Scenarios+at+the+Massachusetts+Military+Reservation+%28MMR%29&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 - Anaerobic Biodegradation of Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) by Acetobacterium malicum Strain HAAP-1 Isolated from a Methanogenic Mixed Culture AN - 18048262; 5886677 AB - In previous work, we studied the anaerobic biodegradation of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) by a methanogenic mixed culture that biodegrades RDX by using H sub(2) as the sole electron donor. Strain HAAP-1 was isolated after enriching for the homoacetogens in a mineral medium containing RDX and an H sub(2)-CO sub(2) (80:20) headspace. Strain HAAP-1 degraded 29.0 mu M RDX in <14 days and formed 13.0 mM acetate when grown in a mineral medium with an H sub(2)-CO sub(2) headspace. Methylenedinitramine was observed as a transient intermediate, indicating ring cleavage had occurred. In live cultures containing an N sub(2)-CO sub(2) headspace, RDX was not degraded, and no acetate was formed. The 16S rRNA gene sequence for strain HAAP-1, consisting of 1485 base pairs, had a 99.2% and 99.1% sequence similarity to Acetobacterium malicum and A. wieringae, respectively. This is the first report of RDX degradation by a homoacetogen growing autotrophically and extends the number of genera known to carry out this transformation. JF - Current Microbiology AU - Adrian, N R AU - Arnett, C M AD - Engineer Research & Development Center, Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 9005, 2902 Newmark Drive, Champaign, IL 61821-9005, United States Y1 - 2004/05// PY - 2004 DA - May 2004 SP - 332 EP - 340 PB - Springer-Verlag VL - 48 IS - 5 SN - 0343-8651, 0343-8651 KW - 16S rDNA KW - Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine KW - methylenedinitramine KW - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology; Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology KW - Phylogeny KW - New records KW - Geographical distribution KW - Biodegradation KW - Nucleotide sequence KW - Acetobacterium malicum KW - Military operations KW - hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine KW - Freshwater KW - Acetobacterium KW - Anaerobic conditions KW - Strains KW - Genes KW - Anoxic conditions KW - Microbiology KW - Acetate KW - Acetobacterium wieringae KW - DNA KW - Microorganisms KW - Explosives KW - rRNA 16S KW - Anaerobic bacteria KW - Q1 08206:Physiology, biochemistry, biophysics KW - A 01016:Microbial degradation KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control KW - J 02722:Biodegradation, growth, nutrition and leaching UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18048262?accountid=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=Current+Microbiology&rft.atitle=Anaerobic+Biodegradation+of+Hexahydro-1%2C3%2C5-trinitro-1%2C3%2C5-triazine+%28RDX%29+by+Acetobacterium+malicum+Strain+HAAP-1+Isolated+from+a+Methanogenic+Mixed+Culture&rft.au=Adrian%2C+N+R%3BArnett%2C+C+M&rft.aulast=Adrian&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2004-05-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=332&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Current+Microbiology&rft.issn=03438651&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00284-003-4156-8 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - New records; Phylogeny; Geographical distribution; Biodegradation; Nucleotide sequence; Military operations; Strains; Anoxic conditions; Genes; Acetate; Microbiology; Microorganisms; DNA; Explosives; Anaerobic bacteria; hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine; Anaerobic conditions; rRNA 16S; Acetobacterium malicum; Acetobacterium wieringae; Acetobacterium; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00284-003-4156-8 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36365640; 10768-040215_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration project for the Va Shly'ay Akimel area in Maricopa County, Arizona is proposed. The 17,435-acre study area lies east of Phoenix, extending from the Granite Reef Dam at its easternmost boundary to the Pima Freeway (State Route 101), a distance of 14 miles. The area includes portions of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and the city of Mesa. The Salt River, a major tributary f the Gila River, has suffered from dam-related diversions of water since the early part of the 20th century, which eventually resulted in cessation of perennial flows in the river, causing the groundwater table to drop. These changes in hydrological conditions caused the natural riparian ecosystem to decline to the point at which only small, isolated fragments of this former chagitat remain. The changes in hydrology have also allowed saltcedar, an invasive nonnative plant species with minimal habitat value, to become established in the region. The study area now consists of a highly disturbed riverbed with minimal extant native vegetation. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The project team developed a set of ecosystem restoration components that could be combined in various ways under each alternative to provide different approaches to accomplishing the project objectives. These components include vegetation planting palettes, including cottonwood-willow, mesquite, wetland, Sonoran desert scrub-shrub, and river bottom; eradication of saltcedar to be replaced by one or several of the vegetation types in the palettes; a water distribution system to irrigate vegetated areas, using surface water; channelization of the Salt River to confine flows to a narrower, deeper channel to offset the reduction in the capacity of the channel to convey water in certain areas due to planting of vegetation within the main channel; and construction of a grade control structure to help reduce upstream migration and, thereby, stabilize the river system and improve the likelihood of successful establishment of vegetation upstream and downstream. Operations and maintenance activities would include maintenance and replacement of pumps, pipelines, and other water delivery and irrigation infrastructure features; periodic removal sediment; and surface reshaping and/or replanting of project features damaged by flood events. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the restoration plan would improve and increase native vegetation and overall habitat values in the area and provide a greater diversity of habitat for threatened and endangered species, including the Yuma clapper rail and southwestern willow flycatcher. Incidental benefits would include both passive and active recreational opportunities, general improvement of the aesthetic quality of the area, and a slight reduction in the potential for flood damage. The restored areas would incorporate a diverse mix of riparian habitat types, including velvet mesquite, cottonwood-willow, Sonoran desert scrub uplands, wetland marsh, and open water. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in temporary degradation of surface water quality due to soil disturbance and the associated erosion and sedimentation. Most alternative could result in significant changes in 100-year storm event floodwater levels, and stormwater could degrade irrigation water quality, though these impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant levels. Archaeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic would be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761) and National Historic Preservation JF - EPA number: 040215, 741 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Salt River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365640?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VA+SHLY-AY+AKIMEL+SALT+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=VA+SHLY-AY+AKIMEL+SALT+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+MARICOPA+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: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36365580; 10768-040215_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration project for the Va Shly'ay Akimel area in Maricopa County, Arizona is proposed. The 17,435-acre study area lies east of Phoenix, extending from the Granite Reef Dam at its easternmost boundary to the Pima Freeway (State Route 101), a distance of 14 miles. The area includes portions of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and the city of Mesa. The Salt River, a major tributary f the Gila River, has suffered from dam-related diversions of water since the early part of the 20th century, which eventually resulted in cessation of perennial flows in the river, causing the groundwater table to drop. These changes in hydrological conditions caused the natural riparian ecosystem to decline to the point at which only small, isolated fragments of this former chagitat remain. The changes in hydrology have also allowed saltcedar, an invasive nonnative plant species with minimal habitat value, to become established in the region. The study area now consists of a highly disturbed riverbed with minimal extant native vegetation. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The project team developed a set of ecosystem restoration components that could be combined in various ways under each alternative to provide different approaches to accomplishing the project objectives. These components include vegetation planting palettes, including cottonwood-willow, mesquite, wetland, Sonoran desert scrub-shrub, and river bottom; eradication of saltcedar to be replaced by one or several of the vegetation types in the palettes; a water distribution system to irrigate vegetated areas, using surface water; channelization of the Salt River to confine flows to a narrower, deeper channel to offset the reduction in the capacity of the channel to convey water in certain areas due to planting of vegetation within the main channel; and construction of a grade control structure to help reduce upstream migration and, thereby, stabilize the river system and improve the likelihood of successful establishment of vegetation upstream and downstream. Operations and maintenance activities would include maintenance and replacement of pumps, pipelines, and other water delivery and irrigation infrastructure features; periodic removal sediment; and surface reshaping and/or replanting of project features damaged by flood events. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the restoration plan would improve and increase native vegetation and overall habitat values in the area and provide a greater diversity of habitat for threatened and endangered species, including the Yuma clapper rail and southwestern willow flycatcher. Incidental benefits would include both passive and active recreational opportunities, general improvement of the aesthetic quality of the area, and a slight reduction in the potential for flood damage. The restored areas would incorporate a diverse mix of riparian habitat types, including velvet mesquite, cottonwood-willow, Sonoran desert scrub uplands, wetland marsh, and open water. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in temporary degradation of surface water quality due to soil disturbance and the associated erosion and sedimentation. Most alternative could result in significant changes in 100-year storm event floodwater levels, and stormwater could degrade irrigation water quality, though these impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant levels. Archaeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic would be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761) and National Historic Preservation JF - EPA number: 040215, 741 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Salt River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36365580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VA+SHLY-AY+AKIMEL+SALT+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=VA+SHLY-AY+AKIMEL+SALT+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+MARICOPA+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: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VA SHLY-AY AKIMEL SALT RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16348792; 10768 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecosystem restoration project for the Va Shly'ay Akimel area in Maricopa County, Arizona is proposed. The 17,435-acre study area lies east of Phoenix, extending from the Granite Reef Dam at its easternmost boundary to the Pima Freeway (State Route 101), a distance of 14 miles. The area includes portions of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and the city of Mesa. The Salt River, a major tributary f the Gila River, has suffered from dam-related diversions of water since the early part of the 20th century, which eventually resulted in cessation of perennial flows in the river, causing the groundwater table to drop. These changes in hydrological conditions caused the natural riparian ecosystem to decline to the point at which only small, isolated fragments of this former chagitat remain. The changes in hydrology have also allowed saltcedar, an invasive nonnative plant species with minimal habitat value, to become established in the region. The study area now consists of a highly disturbed riverbed with minimal extant native vegetation. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The project team developed a set of ecosystem restoration components that could be combined in various ways under each alternative to provide different approaches to accomplishing the project objectives. These components include vegetation planting palettes, including cottonwood-willow, mesquite, wetland, Sonoran desert scrub-shrub, and river bottom; eradication of saltcedar to be replaced by one or several of the vegetation types in the palettes; a water distribution system to irrigate vegetated areas, using surface water; channelization of the Salt River to confine flows to a narrower, deeper channel to offset the reduction in the capacity of the channel to convey water in certain areas due to planting of vegetation within the main channel; and construction of a grade control structure to help reduce upstream migration and, thereby, stabilize the river system and improve the likelihood of successful establishment of vegetation upstream and downstream. Operations and maintenance activities would include maintenance and replacement of pumps, pipelines, and other water delivery and irrigation infrastructure features; periodic removal sediment; and surface reshaping and/or replanting of project features damaged by flood events. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the restoration plan would improve and increase native vegetation and overall habitat values in the area and provide a greater diversity of habitat for threatened and endangered species, including the Yuma clapper rail and southwestern willow flycatcher. Incidental benefits would include both passive and active recreational opportunities, general improvement of the aesthetic quality of the area, and a slight reduction in the potential for flood damage. The restored areas would incorporate a diverse mix of riparian habitat types, including velvet mesquite, cottonwood-willow, Sonoran desert scrub uplands, wetland marsh, and open water. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would result in temporary degradation of surface water quality due to soil disturbance and the associated erosion and sedimentation. Most alternative could result in significant changes in 100-year storm event floodwater levels, and stormwater could degrade irrigation water quality, though these impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant levels. Archaeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic would be disturbed or destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761) and National Historic Preservation JF - EPA number: 040215, 741 pages and maps, April 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Salt River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16348792?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VA+SHLY-AY+AKIMEL+SALT+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=VA+SHLY-AY+AKIMEL+SALT+RIVER+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+FEASIBILITY+STUDY%2C+MARICOPA+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: April 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR) PILOT PROJECT: LAKE OKEECHOBEE ASR PILOT PROJECT, HILLSBORO ASR PILOT PROJECT, CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER ASR PILOT PROJECT, PALM BEACH, HENDRY, OKEECHOBEE, GLADES, AND MARTIN COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR) PILOT PROJECT: LAKE OKEECHOBEE ASR PILOT PROJECT, HILLSBORO ASR PILOT PROJECT, CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER ASR PILOT PROJECT, PALM BEACH, HENDRY, OKEECHOBEE, GLADES, AND MARTIN COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36353462; 10759-040206_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development pilot aquifer storage and recovery (ARS) projects for Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River of southern Florida is proposed. The projects would be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in Palm Beach, Hendry, Okeechobee, Glades, and Martin counties. Groundwater withdrawals from the Floridian aquifer have damaged the wetland ecology of the Everglades and degraded groundwater quality, threatening wildlife habitat and human health in south Florida. The ASR approach involves the collection and treatment of surface water for injection into a deep aquifer, which is separated from an overlying aquifer by layers of impermeable deposits. This injected water displaces the brackish aquifer water, and the stored water is recovered via pumping for later beneficial uses. Five alternative technologies and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative technologies include media filtration, clarification, ion exchange, and engineered subsurface filtration. All options would include ultraviolet (UV) treatment of water, though two could combine UV treatment with the use of chloramines or combine UV treatment and chloramine treatment. The ASR projects would consist of up to seven wells, one at each of four sites and one three-well cluster. Specific alternative technologies have been chosen for each site to demonstrate the usefulness of each. Each well would have an estimated capacity of 5.0 million gallons per day. The ASR well systems would be located spatially around the lake to demonstrate ADR performance in geographically dispersed areas. A three-well cluster facility would be installed at the Port Mayaca site to demonstrate how multiple-well ASR systems perform. One well would be located adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River in Hendry County and one adjacent to the Hillsboro Canal in Palm Beach County. A monitoring program associated with the ASR projects would include measures of recharge and recovery flow rates and volumes, the volume of water stored, and water quality of injected and recovered water, pressure (water levels) during recharge and recovery at the ASR and monitoring wells, as well as bioassays and ecotoxological analyses of recovered water. Structures to preclude manatees from entering the discharge structures, as well as screens and other measures to reduce fish impingement or entrainment, would be incorporated into the project design. An adaptive management approach will be adopted. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would test the feasibility of utilizing ASR technology for storage of water at each test site and other sites in the area. Information gained from the pilot projects would be used to develop an implementation and operations plan for a complete system, to refine long-term operational goals of these and other ASR wells at the site, and to provide for future ASR projects, which may be implemented for similar purposes. Results from the projects would also be useful in determining the feasibility of utilizing ASR technology at other locations within the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary disturbances during development of each well site would result in a minimal loss of wetland habitat. Fish could become impinged or entrained in system facilities. Water quality could be degraded due to variances in dissolved oxygen levels, temperature changes, and the use of disinfectants. LEGAL MANDATES: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Regulation Act, Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 105-541). JF - EPA number: 040206, Draft Pilot Project Design Report--636 pages, Draft EIS--567 pages, April 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Lakes KW - Marine Mammals KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Caloosahatchee River KW - Everglades KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Regulation Act, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AQUIFER+STORAGE+AND+RECOVERY+%28ASR%29+PILOT+PROJECT%3A+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+HILLSBORO+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+CALOOSAHATCHEE+RIVER+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+PALM+BEACH%2C+HENDRY%2C+OKEECHOBEE%2C+GLADES%2C+AND+MARTIN+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=AQUIFER+STORAGE+AND+RECOVERY+%28ASR%29+PILOT+PROJECT%3A+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+HILLSBORO+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+CALOOSAHATCHEE+RIVER+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+PALM+BEACH%2C+HENDRY%2C+OKEECHOBEE%2C+GLADES%2C+AND+MARTIN+COUNTIES%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 - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR) PILOT PROJECT: LAKE OKEECHOBEE ASR PILOT PROJECT, HILLSBORO ASR PILOT PROJECT, CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER ASR PILOT PROJECT, PALM BEACH, HENDRY, OKEECHOBEE, GLADES, AND MARTIN COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR) PILOT PROJECT: LAKE OKEECHOBEE ASR PILOT PROJECT, HILLSBORO ASR PILOT PROJECT, CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER ASR PILOT PROJECT, PALM BEACH, HENDRY, OKEECHOBEE, GLADES, AND MARTIN COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36353387; 10759-040206_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development pilot aquifer storage and recovery (ARS) projects for Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River of southern Florida is proposed. The projects would be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in Palm Beach, Hendry, Okeechobee, Glades, and Martin counties. Groundwater withdrawals from the Floridian aquifer have damaged the wetland ecology of the Everglades and degraded groundwater quality, threatening wildlife habitat and human health in south Florida. The ASR approach involves the collection and treatment of surface water for injection into a deep aquifer, which is separated from an overlying aquifer by layers of impermeable deposits. This injected water displaces the brackish aquifer water, and the stored water is recovered via pumping for later beneficial uses. Five alternative technologies and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative technologies include media filtration, clarification, ion exchange, and engineered subsurface filtration. All options would include ultraviolet (UV) treatment of water, though two could combine UV treatment with the use of chloramines or combine UV treatment and chloramine treatment. The ASR projects would consist of up to seven wells, one at each of four sites and one three-well cluster. Specific alternative technologies have been chosen for each site to demonstrate the usefulness of each. Each well would have an estimated capacity of 5.0 million gallons per day. The ASR well systems would be located spatially around the lake to demonstrate ADR performance in geographically dispersed areas. A three-well cluster facility would be installed at the Port Mayaca site to demonstrate how multiple-well ASR systems perform. One well would be located adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River in Hendry County and one adjacent to the Hillsboro Canal in Palm Beach County. A monitoring program associated with the ASR projects would include measures of recharge and recovery flow rates and volumes, the volume of water stored, and water quality of injected and recovered water, pressure (water levels) during recharge and recovery at the ASR and monitoring wells, as well as bioassays and ecotoxological analyses of recovered water. Structures to preclude manatees from entering the discharge structures, as well as screens and other measures to reduce fish impingement or entrainment, would be incorporated into the project design. An adaptive management approach will be adopted. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would test the feasibility of utilizing ASR technology for storage of water at each test site and other sites in the area. Information gained from the pilot projects would be used to develop an implementation and operations plan for a complete system, to refine long-term operational goals of these and other ASR wells at the site, and to provide for future ASR projects, which may be implemented for similar purposes. Results from the projects would also be useful in determining the feasibility of utilizing ASR technology at other locations within the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary disturbances during development of each well site would result in a minimal loss of wetland habitat. Fish could become impinged or entrained in system facilities. Water quality could be degraded due to variances in dissolved oxygen levels, temperature changes, and the use of disinfectants. LEGAL MANDATES: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Regulation Act, Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 105-541). JF - EPA number: 040206, Draft Pilot Project Design Report--636 pages, Draft EIS--567 pages, April 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Lakes KW - Marine Mammals KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Caloosahatchee River KW - Everglades KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Regulation Act, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AQUIFER+STORAGE+AND+RECOVERY+%28ASR%29+PILOT+PROJECT%3A+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+HILLSBORO+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+CALOOSAHATCHEE+RIVER+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+PALM+BEACH%2C+HENDRY%2C+OKEECHOBEE%2C+GLADES%2C+AND+MARTIN+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=AQUIFER+STORAGE+AND+RECOVERY+%28ASR%29+PILOT+PROJECT%3A+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+HILLSBORO+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+CALOOSAHATCHEE+RIVER+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+PALM+BEACH%2C+HENDRY%2C+OKEECHOBEE%2C+GLADES%2C+AND+MARTIN+COUNTIES%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 - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY (ASR) PILOT PROJECT: LAKE OKEECHOBEE ASR PILOT PROJECT, HILLSBORO ASR PILOT PROJECT, CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER ASR PILOT PROJECT, PALM BEACH, HENDRY, OKEECHOBEE, GLADES, AND MARTIN COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 16357465; 10759 AB - PURPOSE: The development pilot aquifer storage and recovery (ARS) projects for Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River of southern Florida is proposed. The projects would be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in Palm Beach, Hendry, Okeechobee, Glades, and Martin counties. Groundwater withdrawals from the Floridian aquifer have damaged the wetland ecology of the Everglades and degraded groundwater quality, threatening wildlife habitat and human health in south Florida. The ASR approach involves the collection and treatment of surface water for injection into a deep aquifer, which is separated from an overlying aquifer by layers of impermeable deposits. This injected water displaces the brackish aquifer water, and the stored water is recovered via pumping for later beneficial uses. Five alternative technologies and a No Action Alternative (Alternative F) are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative technologies include media filtration, clarification, ion exchange, and engineered subsurface filtration. All options would include ultraviolet (UV) treatment of water, though two could combine UV treatment with the use of chloramines or combine UV treatment and chloramine treatment. The ASR projects would consist of up to seven wells, one at each of four sites and one three-well cluster. Specific alternative technologies have been chosen for each site to demonstrate the usefulness of each. Each well would have an estimated capacity of 5.0 million gallons per day. The ASR well systems would be located spatially around the lake to demonstrate ADR performance in geographically dispersed areas. A three-well cluster facility would be installed at the Port Mayaca site to demonstrate how multiple-well ASR systems perform. One well would be located adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River in Hendry County and one adjacent to the Hillsboro Canal in Palm Beach County. A monitoring program associated with the ASR projects would include measures of recharge and recovery flow rates and volumes, the volume of water stored, and water quality of injected and recovered water, pressure (water levels) during recharge and recovery at the ASR and monitoring wells, as well as bioassays and ecotoxological analyses of recovered water. Structures to preclude manatees from entering the discharge structures, as well as screens and other measures to reduce fish impingement or entrainment, would be incorporated into the project design. An adaptive management approach will be adopted. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would test the feasibility of utilizing ASR technology for storage of water at each test site and other sites in the area. Information gained from the pilot projects would be used to develop an implementation and operations plan for a complete system, to refine long-term operational goals of these and other ASR wells at the site, and to provide for future ASR projects, which may be implemented for similar purposes. Results from the projects would also be useful in determining the feasibility of utilizing ASR technology at other locations within the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Temporary disturbances during development of each well site would result in a minimal loss of wetland habitat. Fish could become impinged or entrained in system facilities. Water quality could be degraded due to variances in dissolved oxygen levels, temperature changes, and the use of disinfectants. LEGAL MANDATES: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Regulation Act, Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-53), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 105-541). JF - EPA number: 040206, Draft Pilot Project Design Report--636 pages, Draft EIS--567 pages, April 28, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Lakes KW - Marine Mammals KW - Rivers KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - Caloosahatchee River KW - Everglades KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Regulation Act, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AQUIFER+STORAGE+AND+RECOVERY+%28ASR%29+PILOT+PROJECT%3A+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+HILLSBORO+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+CALOOSAHATCHEE+RIVER+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+PALM+BEACH%2C+HENDRY%2C+OKEECHOBEE%2C+GLADES%2C+AND+MARTIN+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=AQUIFER+STORAGE+AND+RECOVERY+%28ASR%29+PILOT+PROJECT%3A+LAKE+OKEECHOBEE+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+HILLSBORO+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+CALOOSAHATCHEE+RIVER+ASR+PILOT+PROJECT%2C+PALM+BEACH%2C+HENDRY%2C+OKEECHOBEE%2C+GLADES%2C+AND+MARTIN+COUNTIES%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 - Draft. Preparation date: April 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36357225; 10750-040197_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 6.7-mile, limited-access toll highway within the State Route (SR) 92 corridor in Middlesex County, New Jersey is proposed. The facility would serve as an east-west highway link connecting US 1 in South Brunswick Township with the New Jersey Turnpike at Interchange 8A in Monroe Township. The project, which would traverse the Plainsboro Township as well, would pass through mostly agricultural land, traversing a lesser amount of parkland and other open space and commercial and residential land uses. Since 1980, strong population and employment growth has occurred in the communities along US 1 in the vicinity of Princeton. The growth has resulted in increased traffic volumes on the area's roads, including US 1 and the local and secondary east-west roads. Continued rapid growth is projected in this area over the next two decades. A new east-west highway would provide a high-speed link between the major north-south highways in central New Jersey. Alternatives evaluated in detail in this draft EIS include the proposed action, widening of US 1, widening US 1 combined with removal of traffic signals, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SR 92 project would improve east-west mobility in central New Jersey by providing an alternative access for north-south traffic that now uses US 1 and, thereby, reducing adverse impacts of through traffic on local communities. The project would achieve a hierarchical east-west roadway system by providing a new high-speed connection for through traffic moving between the major north-south corridors (US 1, US 130, and the New Jersey Turnpike). More efficient traffic movement would improve air quality regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Floodplain encroachment would occur at Heathcote, Devil's, and Shallow brooks within the Millstone River watershed. Wildlife habitat, including some interior forest habitat and habitat for federally protected animal and plant species would be lost. Approximately 210 acres of farmland would be displaced, and the roadway would interfere with access to an additional 78 acres of such land. The project would require discharging fill into 12.03 acres of jurisdictional waters of the US, including wetlands. A further 1.16 acres of wetlands would be permanently shaded by bridges. To mitigate for wetland losses, 57 acres of wetland would be created and an additional 202 acres of forested wetland and upland would be preserved. Eight sensitive receptors would experience traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards The new highway would increase truck traffic in the historic village of Kingston, and an interchange on US 1 would change the historic character of the New Brunswick Straight Line Turnpike, an historically significant roadway. A cultural resources assessment identified five small areas near the US 1 interchanges that have a moderate to high probability for the presence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Four residential properties, all in South Brunswick, would be displaced, along with two vacant commercial/industrial buildings, and a New Jersey Turnpike Authority building, and the presence of SR 92 could complicate access to a small number of businesses establishments. Three ball fields on a 20-acre recreational site owned by Princeton University would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040197, Draft EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--741 pages, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/36357225?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RHODE ISLAND REGION LONG-TERM DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE EVALUATION PROJECT. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RHODE ISLAND REGION LONG-TERM DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE EVALUATION PROJECT. AN - 36350025; 10753-040200_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more long-term ocean dredged material disposal sites for the state of Rhode Island is proposed. The site evaluation study area includes waters offshore of Rhode Island and offshore of southeastern Massachusetts. A letter from the governor to the appropriate federal authorities cited difficulties experienced by navigational facilities due to the backlog of maintenance dredging requirements. This backlog stems from a lack of environmentally acceptable and cost-effective disposal options available to the navigation community. Based on studies conducted in 1984 and 2002, it is estimated that 8.7 million cubic yards of dredged material will be generated in the state and southeastern Massachusetts over the next 20 years. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and 11 specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as well as evaluation factors specific to the study area, two potential alternative open-water disposal sites were identified for detailed consideration. In addition to these two sites, this draft EIS considers a No-Action Alternative. Alternative Site W encompasses one square nautical mile approximately nine nautical miles south of Point Judith, Rhode Island and roughly 6.5 nautical miles east of Block Island. The site is located over a topographic depression; the maximum water depth is approximately 130 feet, The boundaries for Site W are set on the east and west by navigational channels, on the south by depth restrictions, and on the north by anecdotal reports that it is a finfish trawling zone. Alternative Site E encompasses one square nautical mile approximately 15 nautical miles southeast of Point Judith and 17.7 nautical miles northeast of Block Island. The site is located on a gently sloping plane that deepens to the south and east. The boundaries of Site E are set in the northwest by a navigational channel buffer zone on the inbound lane to Buzzards Bay, on the northeast by depth restrictions, and on the south by an identified finfish trawling zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The designated site or sites would provide for disposal of dredged materials found suitable for open-water disposal from navigation projects and other sources from Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and sediment disposal activities would cause temporary turbidity, resulting in temporary localized degradation of water quality, and destroy benthos at activity sites. Bottom topography of the chosen site or sites would be altered somewhat, but this would little effect on current flows or hydrology in the area. While Site W has already experienced dredged material disposal, Site E is currently in a pristine state. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).. JF - EPA number: 040200, 677 pages, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Marine Systems KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Waterways KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Massachusetts KW - Rhode Island 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/36350025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36349943; 10750-040197_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 6.7-mile, limited-access toll highway within the State Route (SR) 92 corridor in Middlesex County, New Jersey is proposed. The facility would serve as an east-west highway link connecting US 1 in South Brunswick Township with the New Jersey Turnpike at Interchange 8A in Monroe Township. The project, which would traverse the Plainsboro Township as well, would pass through mostly agricultural land, traversing a lesser amount of parkland and other open space and commercial and residential land uses. Since 1980, strong population and employment growth has occurred in the communities along US 1 in the vicinity of Princeton. The growth has resulted in increased traffic volumes on the area's roads, including US 1 and the local and secondary east-west roads. Continued rapid growth is projected in this area over the next two decades. A new east-west highway would provide a high-speed link between the major north-south highways in central New Jersey. Alternatives evaluated in detail in this draft EIS include the proposed action, widening of US 1, widening US 1 combined with removal of traffic signals, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SR 92 project would improve east-west mobility in central New Jersey by providing an alternative access for north-south traffic that now uses US 1 and, thereby, reducing adverse impacts of through traffic on local communities. The project would achieve a hierarchical east-west roadway system by providing a new high-speed connection for through traffic moving between the major north-south corridors (US 1, US 130, and the New Jersey Turnpike). More efficient traffic movement would improve air quality regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Floodplain encroachment would occur at Heathcote, Devil's, and Shallow brooks within the Millstone River watershed. Wildlife habitat, including some interior forest habitat and habitat for federally protected animal and plant species would be lost. Approximately 210 acres of farmland would be displaced, and the roadway would interfere with access to an additional 78 acres of such land. The project would require discharging fill into 12.03 acres of jurisdictional waters of the US, including wetlands. A further 1.16 acres of wetlands would be permanently shaded by bridges. To mitigate for wetland losses, 57 acres of wetland would be created and an additional 202 acres of forested wetland and upland would be preserved. Eight sensitive receptors would experience traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards The new highway would increase truck traffic in the historic village of Kingston, and an interchange on US 1 would change the historic character of the New Brunswick Straight Line Turnpike, an historically significant roadway. A cultural resources assessment identified five small areas near the US 1 interchanges that have a moderate to high probability for the presence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Four residential properties, all in South Brunswick, would be displaced, along with two vacant commercial/industrial buildings, and a New Jersey Turnpike Authority building, and the presence of SR 92 could complicate access to a small number of businesses establishments. Three ball fields on a 20-acre recreational site owned by Princeton University would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040197, Draft EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--741 pages, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/36349943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROUTE 92 PROJECT, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 16348709; 10750 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 6.7-mile, limited-access toll highway within the State Route (SR) 92 corridor in Middlesex County, New Jersey is proposed. The facility would serve as an east-west highway link connecting US 1 in South Brunswick Township with the New Jersey Turnpike at Interchange 8A in Monroe Township. The project, which would traverse the Plainsboro Township as well, would pass through mostly agricultural land, traversing a lesser amount of parkland and other open space and commercial and residential land uses. Since 1980, strong population and employment growth has occurred in the communities along US 1 in the vicinity of Princeton. The growth has resulted in increased traffic volumes on the area's roads, including US 1 and the local and secondary east-west roads. Continued rapid growth is projected in this area over the next two decades. A new east-west highway would provide a high-speed link between the major north-south highways in central New Jersey. Alternatives evaluated in detail in this draft EIS include the proposed action, widening of US 1, widening US 1 combined with removal of traffic signals, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The SR 92 project would improve east-west mobility in central New Jersey by providing an alternative access for north-south traffic that now uses US 1 and, thereby, reducing adverse impacts of through traffic on local communities. The project would achieve a hierarchical east-west roadway system by providing a new high-speed connection for through traffic moving between the major north-south corridors (US 1, US 130, and the New Jersey Turnpike). More efficient traffic movement would improve air quality regionally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Floodplain encroachment would occur at Heathcote, Devil's, and Shallow brooks within the Millstone River watershed. Wildlife habitat, including some interior forest habitat and habitat for federally protected animal and plant species would be lost. Approximately 210 acres of farmland would be displaced, and the roadway would interfere with access to an additional 78 acres of such land. The project would require discharging fill into 12.03 acres of jurisdictional waters of the US, including wetlands. A further 1.16 acres of wetlands would be permanently shaded by bridges. To mitigate for wetland losses, 57 acres of wetland would be created and an additional 202 acres of forested wetland and upland would be preserved. Eight sensitive receptors would experience traffic-generated noise in excess of federal standards The new highway would increase truck traffic in the historic village of Kingston, and an interchange on US 1 would change the historic character of the New Brunswick Straight Line Turnpike, an historically significant roadway. A cultural resources assessment identified five small areas near the US 1 interchanges that have a moderate to high probability for the presence of prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Four residential properties, all in South Brunswick, would be displaced, along with two vacant commercial/industrial buildings, and a New Jersey Turnpike Authority building, and the presence of SR 92 could complicate access to a small number of businesses establishments. Three ball fields on a 20-acre recreational site owned by Princeton University would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040197, Draft EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--741 pages, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Facilities 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/16348709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=ROUTE+92+PROJECT%2C+MIDDLESEX+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RHODE ISLAND REGION LONG-TERM DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE EVALUATION PROJECT. AN - 16341249; 10753 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more long-term ocean dredged material disposal sites for the state of Rhode Island is proposed. The site evaluation study area includes waters offshore of Rhode Island and offshore of southeastern Massachusetts. A letter from the governor to the appropriate federal authorities cited difficulties experienced by navigational facilities due to the backlog of maintenance dredging requirements. This backlog stems from a lack of environmentally acceptable and cost-effective disposal options available to the navigation community. Based on studies conducted in 1984 and 2002, it is estimated that 8.7 million cubic yards of dredged material will be generated in the state and southeastern Massachusetts over the next 20 years. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and 11 specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as well as evaluation factors specific to the study area, two potential alternative open-water disposal sites were identified for detailed consideration. In addition to these two sites, this draft EIS considers a No-Action Alternative. Alternative Site W encompasses one square nautical mile approximately nine nautical miles south of Point Judith, Rhode Island and roughly 6.5 nautical miles east of Block Island. The site is located over a topographic depression; the maximum water depth is approximately 130 feet, The boundaries for Site W are set on the east and west by navigational channels, on the south by depth restrictions, and on the north by anecdotal reports that it is a finfish trawling zone. Alternative Site E encompasses one square nautical mile approximately 15 nautical miles southeast of Point Judith and 17.7 nautical miles northeast of Block Island. The site is located on a gently sloping plane that deepens to the south and east. The boundaries of Site E are set in the northwest by a navigational channel buffer zone on the inbound lane to Buzzards Bay, on the northeast by depth restrictions, and on the south by an identified finfish trawling zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The designated site or sites would provide for disposal of dredged materials found suitable for open-water disposal from navigation projects and other sources from Rhode Island and southeastern Massachusetts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and sediment disposal activities would cause temporary turbidity, resulting in temporary localized degradation of water quality, and destroy benthos at activity sites. Bottom topography of the chosen site or sites would be altered somewhat, but this would little effect on current flows or hydrology in the area. While Site W has already experienced dredged material disposal, Site E is currently in a pristine state. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).. JF - EPA number: 040200, 677 pages, April 23, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Marine Systems KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality KW - Waterways KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Massachusetts KW - Rhode Island 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/16341249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RHODE+ISLAND+REGION+LONG-TERM+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+EVALUATION+PROJECT.&rft.title=RHODE+ISLAND+REGION+LONG-TERM+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+EVALUATION+PROJECT.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36356492; 10745-040192_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 stormwater improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and ungreted wastewater and stormwater into nearshore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,8000 square nautical miles of nearshore 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 draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding for 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 stormwater 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 proceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and stormwater projects now under consideration are estimated at $540.1 million $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the nearshore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting nearshore 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 wastewater 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 stormwater 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 and Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act JF - EPA number: 040192, 387 pages and maps, April 21, 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 21, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16357144; 10745 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 stormwater improvements that would alleviate the water quality degradation that has resulted from the discharge of inadequate and ungreted wastewater and stormwater into nearshore waters of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The sanctuary encompasses 2,8000 square nautical miles of nearshore 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 draft EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would provide federal funding for 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 stormwater 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 proceed", as agreed upon by local municipalities, would have priority. Total costs of all priority wastewater and stormwater projects now under consideration are estimated at $540.1 million $615.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The program would reduce nutrient loadings to the nearshore waters of the Keys, thereby improving water quality and protecting nearshore 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 wastewater 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 stormwater 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 and Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Act JF - EPA number: 040192, 387 pages and maps, April 21, 2004 PY - 2004 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357144?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-21&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 - Draft. Preparation date: April 21, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOWARD BEND FLOODPLAIN, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 36412375; 10735 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 draft 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 action 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 of 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, somewhat 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.). JF - EPA number: 040181, 301 pages, April 16, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water 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/36412375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-16&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 - Draft. Preparation date: April 16, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSFORMATION OF U.S ARMY, FORTS WAINWRIGHT AND RICHARDSON, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TRANSFORMATION OF U.S ARMY, FORTS WAINWRIGHT AND RICHARDSON, ALASKA. AN - 36359208; 10737-040184_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The transformation of the 172nd Infantry Brigade (Separate) (172nd SIB) at Fort Wainwright and Fort Richardson, Alaska into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team is proposed. Generally, the Army has proposed to transform the current Legacy Force to an Objective Force over the next 30 years. The "Army Vision" is to transform its force structure to be substantially more responsible, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable than the current force structure. This transformation would affect most aspects of the Army's doctrine, training, leader development, organization, installations, materiel, and soldiers. The 172nd SIB was selected for transformation as part of this overall program because its location and current structure are compatible with the Army Vision. The minimal transformation standards that the proposed action must meet include proximity to critical areas of interest for the United States, the capability to execute the full spectrum of military missions, and a close association with sea and air bases in the area. Minimum requirements for transformation include provision of training infrastructure to sustain combat readiness, provision of infrastructure to meet rapid deployment requirements, provision of unmanned aerial vehicle support and maintenance facilities, provision of a port staging area for Stryker Brigade Combat Team sea deployment, and provision of support for interim and future Army transformation requirements. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to access to affected areas by recreationists, traffic levels, wildlife habitat, impacts of maneuvers, fire management, and impacts to cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would include components for stationing, construction, training, systems acquisition, deployment, and institutional matters; all action alternatives would also include an impacts mitigation component. Alternative 2 would require no new infrastructure. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would add new infrastructure and an airborne task force. The transformation would be implemented by May 2005. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transformation would strengthen the capabilities of the 172nd SIB to allow it to provide a full spectrum of force without compromising its ability to respond quickly. In addition, transformation would provide critical information for the long-term deployment of the Objective Force. Alternative 2 would have no environmental impacts due to the lack of new infrastructure development under this alternative. Development costs would add approximately $230 million to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of infrastructure and training maneuvers would disturb and /or compact soils, potentially resulting in sedimentation of surface flows, and groundwater resources could be affected by increased consumption and construction and training activities. Wetlands and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Fire management could be hampered by changes in stationing and training. Public access, including access for hunters, fishermen, and other recreationists, would be affected by various activities association with the transformation, as would subsistence activities and other activities of Alaskan Natives. Noise levels would increase due to construction and training activities. The transformation would increase the level of hazardous materials in the area. Archaeological and historic sites could be affected by infrastructure development as well as training activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, asamended (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0475D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040184, Final EIS--837 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, April 16, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Protection KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Minorities KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Fort Richardson, Alaska KW - Fort Wainwright, Alaska KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSFORMATION+OF+U.S+ARMY%2C+FORTS+WAINWRIGHT+AND+RICHARDSON%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=TRANSFORMATION+OF+U.S+ARMY%2C+FORTS+WAINWRIGHT+AND+RICHARDSON%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 16, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSFORMATION OF U.S ARMY, FORTS WAINWRIGHT AND RICHARDSON, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TRANSFORMATION OF U.S ARMY, FORTS WAINWRIGHT AND RICHARDSON, ALASKA. AN - 36355463; 10737-040184_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The transformation of the 172nd Infantry Brigade (Separate) (172nd SIB) at Fort Wainwright and Fort Richardson, Alaska into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team is proposed. Generally, the Army has proposed to transform the current Legacy Force to an Objective Force over the next 30 years. The "Army Vision" is to transform its force structure to be substantially more responsible, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable than the current force structure. This transformation would affect most aspects of the Army's doctrine, training, leader development, organization, installations, materiel, and soldiers. The 172nd SIB was selected for transformation as part of this overall program because its location and current structure are compatible with the Army Vision. The minimal transformation standards that the proposed action must meet include proximity to critical areas of interest for the United States, the capability to execute the full spectrum of military missions, and a close association with sea and air bases in the area. Minimum requirements for transformation include provision of training infrastructure to sustain combat readiness, provision of infrastructure to meet rapid deployment requirements, provision of unmanned aerial vehicle support and maintenance facilities, provision of a port staging area for Stryker Brigade Combat Team sea deployment, and provision of support for interim and future Army transformation requirements. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to access to affected areas by recreationists, traffic levels, wildlife habitat, impacts of maneuvers, fire management, and impacts to cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would include components for stationing, construction, training, systems acquisition, deployment, and institutional matters; all action alternatives would also include an impacts mitigation component. Alternative 2 would require no new infrastructure. The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) would add new infrastructure and an airborne task force. The transformation would be implemented by May 2005. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transformation would strengthen the capabilities of the 172nd SIB to allow it to provide a full spectrum of force without compromising its ability to respond quickly. In addition, transformation would provide critical information for the long-term deployment of the Objective Force. Alternative 2 would have no environmental impacts due to the lack of new infrastructure development under this alternative. Development costs would add approximately $230 million to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of infrastructure and training maneuvers would disturb and /or compact soils, potentially resulting in sedimentation of surface flows, and groundwater resources could be affected by increased consumption and construction and training activities. Wetlands and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Fire management could be hampered by changes in stationing and training. Public access, including access for hunters, fishermen, and other recreationists, would be affected by various activities association with the transformation, as would subsistence activities and other activities of Alaskan Natives. Noise levels would increase due to construction and training activities. The transformation would increase the level of hazardous materials in the area. Archaeological and historic sites could be affected by infrastructure development as well as training activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, asamended (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0475D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040184, Final EIS--837 pages, Appendices--589 pages and maps, April 16, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Protection KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Minorities KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Fort Richardson, Alaska KW - Fort Wainwright, Alaska KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSFORMATION+OF+U.S+ARMY%2C+FORTS+WAINWRIGHT+AND+RICHARDSON%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=TRANSFORMATION+OF+U.S+ARMY%2C+FORTS+WAINWRIGHT+AND+RICHARDSON%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 16, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36429730; 10731 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 20.4-mile segment of US Trunk Highway 53 (TH 53) from a point 0.75 mile south of County Road 307, north of Virginia, to the south city limits of Cook in St. Louis County, Minnesota is proposed. The project would address a combination of problems related to capacity, accident history, pavement condition, sufficiency ratings, access management, and international and interregional trade with respect to the corridor. The project would provide for construction of a four-lane divided highway using existing and/or new alignment. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives are basically alignment alternatives. All alternatives use a common portion of the existing TH 53 roadway. From the southernmost crossing of the Rice River, approximately 0.5 mile north of the intersection of TH 53 with Forest Road 257 to the northern terminus of the project corridor, the alternatives use the existing roadway for southbound traffic and provide two northbound lanes to the east. The southern segment of the corridor, from Rice River to the southern project terminus, each alternative presents a distinct alignment. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would run along high ground well behind the existing residences on TH 53. Alternative C would reconnect to the existing alignment near CR 240, a location that limits the potential impacts to the Laurentian Environmental Learning Center. The project would include two crossings of Johnson Creek and three crossings of the Rice River. Existing TH 53 from the Sand River to CR 240, a distance of approximately five miles, would serve as a local access road. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $28.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The four-lane expressway would increase traffic capacity within the corridor; improve system linkage to regional, national, and international networks; enhance the functioning of TH 53 as an important interregional and international trade corridor; support ongoing and future economic development in the project area and within the northeastern Minnesota region; reduce the potential for serious traffic accidents; improve currently deficient access management; and correct pavement conditions and other physical attributes of the highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 296 acres of private land and the displacement of 102 acres of US Forest Service land. Land acquisitions would result in the displacement of 17 residences and one business. From 73 to 139 acres of Forest Service land would be taken. The project would affect 124 acres of wetlands and require stream modifications at 14 locations. The new facility would traverse one recreational trail. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0313D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040177, Final EIS--121 pages, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, April 15, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Trails 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 - 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/36429730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%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 - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36352976; 10731-040177_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 20.4-mile segment of US Trunk Highway 53 (TH 53) from a point 0.75 mile south of County Road 307, north of Virginia, to the south city limits of Cook in St. Louis County, Minnesota is proposed. The project would address a combination of problems related to capacity, accident history, pavement condition, sufficiency ratings, access management, and international and interregional trade with respect to the corridor. The project would provide for construction of a four-lane divided highway using existing and/or new alignment. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives are basically alignment alternatives. All alternatives use a common portion of the existing TH 53 roadway. From the southernmost crossing of the Rice River, approximately 0.5 mile north of the intersection of TH 53 with Forest Road 257 to the northern terminus of the project corridor, the alternatives use the existing roadway for southbound traffic and provide two northbound lanes to the east. The southern segment of the corridor, from Rice River to the southern project terminus, each alternative presents a distinct alignment. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would run along high ground well behind the existing residences on TH 53. Alternative C would reconnect to the existing alignment near CR 240, a location that limits the potential impacts to the Laurentian Environmental Learning Center. The project would include two crossings of Johnson Creek and three crossings of the Rice River. Existing TH 53 from the Sand River to CR 240, a distance of approximately five miles, would serve as a local access road. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $28.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The four-lane expressway would increase traffic capacity within the corridor; improve system linkage to regional, national, and international networks; enhance the functioning of TH 53 as an important interregional and international trade corridor; support ongoing and future economic development in the project area and within the northeastern Minnesota region; reduce the potential for serious traffic accidents; improve currently deficient access management; and correct pavement conditions and other physical attributes of the highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 296 acres of private land and the displacement of 102 acres of US Forest Service land. Land acquisitions would result in the displacement of 17 residences and one business. From 73 to 139 acres of Forest Service land would be taken. The project would affect 124 acres of wetlands and require stream modifications at 14 locations. The new facility would traverse one recreational trail. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0313D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040177, Final EIS--121 pages, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, April 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Trails 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 - 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/36352976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%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 - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 53 RECONSTRUCTION, DISTRICT 1 - DULUTH S.P. 6920-44 - FROM 2/4 MILE SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 307 (NORTH OF VIRGINIA, MN) TO THE SOUTH CITY LIMITS OF COOK, ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AN - 36352907; 10731-040177_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 20.4-mile segment of US Trunk Highway 53 (TH 53) from a point 0.75 mile south of County Road 307, north of Virginia, to the south city limits of Cook in St. Louis County, Minnesota is proposed. The project would address a combination of problems related to capacity, accident history, pavement condition, sufficiency ratings, access management, and international and interregional trade with respect to the corridor. The project would provide for construction of a four-lane divided highway using existing and/or new alignment. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Build alternatives are basically alignment alternatives. All alternatives use a common portion of the existing TH 53 roadway. From the southernmost crossing of the Rice River, approximately 0.5 mile north of the intersection of TH 53 with Forest Road 257 to the northern terminus of the project corridor, the alternatives use the existing roadway for southbound traffic and provide two northbound lanes to the east. The southern segment of the corridor, from Rice River to the southern project terminus, each alternative presents a distinct alignment. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would run along high ground well behind the existing residences on TH 53. Alternative C would reconnect to the existing alignment near CR 240, a location that limits the potential impacts to the Laurentian Environmental Learning Center. The project would include two crossings of Johnson Creek and three crossings of the Rice River. Existing TH 53 from the Sand River to CR 240, a distance of approximately five miles, would serve as a local access road. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $28.7 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The four-lane expressway would increase traffic capacity within the corridor; improve system linkage to regional, national, and international networks; enhance the functioning of TH 53 as an important interregional and international trade corridor; support ongoing and future economic development in the project area and within the northeastern Minnesota region; reduce the potential for serious traffic accidents; improve currently deficient access management; and correct pavement conditions and other physical attributes of the highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development would require the acquisition of 296 acres of private land and the displacement of 102 acres of US Forest Service land. Land acquisitions would result in the displacement of 17 residences and one business. From 73 to 139 acres of Forest Service land would be taken. The project would affect 124 acres of wetlands and require stream modifications at 14 locations. The new facility would traverse one recreational trail. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0313D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040177, Final EIS--121 pages, Draft EIS--137 pages and maps, April 15, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Trails 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 - 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/36352907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=TRUNK+HIGHWAY+53+RECONSTRUCTION%2C+DISTRICT+1+-+DULUTH+S.P.+6920-44+-+FROM+2%2F4+MILE+SOUTH+OF+COUNTY+ROAD+307+%28NORTH+OF+VIRGINIA%2C+MN%29+TO+THE+SOUTH+CITY+LIMITS+OF+COOK%2C+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTY%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 - Final. Preparation date: April 15, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE DRINKING WATER PROJECT, ALBURQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36435196; 10726 AB - PURPOSE: The development of drinking water conveyance and treatment facilities for the residents of the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico is proposed. The project's region of influence includes portions of the Rio Grande watershed from the outlet works of the Heron Reservoir on the Rio Chama downstream to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande. The project, known as the City's Drinking Water Project, would involve the diversion of surface water from the Rio Grande; transportation of the diverted raw water to a new water treatment plant; treatment of the raw water to meet drinking water standards; and distribution of the treated, potable water to customers in the city's water service area. The project would require the issuance of a license by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) to the city for the location of project facilities on BR-administered lands or rights-of-way, or approval of a license between the city and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for the location of facilities on a rights-of-way held by the BR over property owned by the district; possible execution of a water carriage contract authorizing use of federal irrigation canals to convey non-project water; and issuance of a Section 404 Permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The project would use the city's 48,200 acre-feet annual allocation of waters; after transit losses, the amount available for full use would amount to 47,000 acre-feet. After the city's water was fully consumed, the native Rio Grande water, about half of the 94,000 acre-feet per year, would be returned to the Rio Grande following treatment at the city's Southside Water Reclamation Plant. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the action alternatives would provide a means by which the city could fully use the city's San Juan-Chama project water to provide a sustainable water supply. The preferred alternative (Paseo del Norte Diversion Alternative) would provide for a surface diversion dam in the Albuquerque reach of the Rio Grande, approximately 0.7 mile north of Paseo del Norte. Gates on the east side of the dam would route water to an inlet structure, from which a pump station would pump water into a pipeline for conveyance to the Chappell Drive Water Treatment Plant. The dam would incorporate fish screen and fishway facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a sustainable water supply for the city through direct and full consumptive use of City San Juan-Chama water for potable purposes in accordance with federal safe drinking water regulations. The new system would eliminate the current depletion of the groundwater aquifer, preventing continued land subsidence and deterioration of groundwater quality. Surface water quality would also improve due to agreed upon releases from the diversion structure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require construction of a surface diversion in-river and a pump station with bosque habitat. Approximately 14.7 acres of riparian areas would be affected. Another 2.4 acres of riparian area would be temporarily affected due to pipeline construction activities. The habitat of three federally protected species, including fish and bird species, could be affected by project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0450D, Volume26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040172, Final EIS--419 pages and maps, Appendices--529 pages and maps, April 8, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 04-10 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Rio Grande KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-26&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 Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE DRINKING WATER PROJECT, ALBURQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE DRINKING WATER PROJECT, ALBURQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36354120; 10726-040172_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of drinking water conveyance and treatment facilities for the residents of the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico is proposed. The project's region of influence includes portions of the Rio Grande watershed from the outlet works of the Heron Reservoir on the Rio Chama downstream to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir on the Rio Grande. The project, known as the City's Drinking Water Project, would involve the diversion of surface water from the Rio Grande; transportation of the diverted raw water to a new water treatment plant; treatment of the raw water to meet drinking water standards; and distribution of the treated, potable water to customers in the city's water service area. The project would require the issuance of a license by the Bureau of Reclamation (BR) to the city for the location of project facilities on BR-administered lands or rights-of-way, or approval of a license between the city and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for the location of facilities on a rights-of-way held by the BR over property owned by the district; possible execution of a water carriage contract authorizing use of federal irrigation canals to convey non-project water; and issuance of a Section 404 Permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. The project would use the city's 48,200 acre-feet annual allocation of waters; after transit losses, the amount available for full use would amount to 47,000 acre-feet. After the city's water was fully consumed, the native Rio Grande water, about half of the 94,000 acre-feet per year, would be returned to the Rio Grande following treatment at the city's Southside Water Reclamation Plant. Nine alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the action alternatives would provide a means by which the city could fully use the city's San Juan-Chama project water to provide a sustainable water supply. The preferred alternative (Paseo del Norte Diversion Alternative) would provide for a surface diversion dam in the Albuquerque reach of the Rio Grande, approximately 0.7 mile north of Paseo del Norte. Gates on the east side of the dam would route water to an inlet structure, from which a pump station would pump water into a pipeline for conveyance to the Chappell Drive Water Treatment Plant. The dam would incorporate fish screen and fishway facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a sustainable water supply for the city through direct and full consumptive use of City San Juan-Chama water for potable purposes in accordance with federal safe drinking water regulations. The new system would eliminate the current depletion of the groundwater aquifer, preventing continued land subsidence and deterioration of groundwater quality. Surface water quality would also improve due to agreed upon releases from the diversion structure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would require construction of a surface diversion in-river and a pump station with bosque habitat. Approximately 14.7 acres of riparian areas would be affected. Another 2.4 acres of riparian area would be temporarily affected due to pipeline construction activities. The habitat of three federally protected species, including fish and bird species, could be affected by project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0450D, Volume26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040172, Final EIS--419 pages and maps, Appendices--529 pages and maps, April 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 04-10 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Rio Grande KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CITY+OF+ALBUQUERQUE+DRINKING+WATER+PROJECT%2C+ALBURQUERQUE%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CITY+OF+ALBUQUERQUE+DRINKING+WATER+PROJECT%2C+ALBURQUERQUE%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 36435871; 10727 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion. inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. THree 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, supported by continuous 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. Interchange options for both alternatives would be considered at MF 450, Cronson/Crawford Boulevard, MD 424, Wagh Chapel/Reidel Road, and MD 175. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 3 would result in the displacement of three to 12 residences, 12 to 18 businesses, 9.5 to 41.2 to 9.5 acres of wetlands, 0.5 to 2.1 acres of parkland, and 60 to 83 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse seven or eight streams, displacing 42 to 50 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter nine or 10 hazardous materials sites. Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 5 would result in the displacement of one to five residences, nine to 16 businesses, 11.6 to 16.5 of wetlands, up to two acres of parkland, and 54 to 70 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse seven or eight streams, displacing 46 to 48 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter seven to nine hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025), though two of the sites would be protected by noise abatement structures. 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: 040173, Draft EIS--276 pages and maps, Map Supplement, April 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland 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/36435871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MD 3 PROJECT PLANNING STUDY, FROM NORTH OF US 50 TO SOUTH OF MD 32, ANNE ARUNDEL AND PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTIES, MARYLAND. AN - 36351296; 10727-040173_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Maryland Route 3 (MD 3) corridor from north of US 50 to south of MD 32 in Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties, Maryland is proposed. The 9.28-mile MD 3 corridor provides a major north-south transportation facility in the southwestern portion of Anne Arundel County and the northeastern portion of Prince George's County. Traffic congestion. inadequate intersections, increased residential and commercial development, and the need for safe pedestrian and bicycle use of the corridor have accelerated the need for improvements to MD 3. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Each build alternative has several interchange options. Alternative 3 would implement a boulevard concept, providing dualization of northbound MD 3 in Prince George's County, with existing southbound MD 3 being converted to a local service road. THree 11-foot lanes would be provided in each direction along the existing alignment through the remainder of the corridor, supported by continuous 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Alternative 5 would implement a dualization concept as well, utilizing three, 11-foot lanes in each direction along existing MD 3 from US 50 to MD 424, with 16-foot auxiliary lands and 10-foot shoulders where appropriate. Dualization of southbound MD 3 from MD 424 to MD 32 would be included as part of the design, with existing northbound MD 3 converted to a local service road. Interchange options for both alternatives would be considered at MF 450, Cronson/Crawford Boulevard, MD 424, Wagh Chapel/Reidel Road, and MD 175. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve vehicular and pedestrian safety and travel within the MD 3 corridor, enhancing traffic flows on this important link in the Baltimore/Washington/Annapolis region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 3 would result in the displacement of three to 12 residences, 12 to 18 businesses, 9.5 to 41.2 to 9.5 acres of wetlands, 0.5 to 2.1 acres of parkland, and 60 to 83 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse seven or eight streams, displacing 42 to 50 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter nine or 10 hazardous materials sites. Rights-of-way requirements for Alternative 5 would result in the displacement of one to five residences, nine to 16 businesses, 11.6 to 16.5 of wetlands, up to two acres of parkland, and 54 to 70 acres of forested land. The facility would traverse seven or eight streams, displacing 46 to 48 acres of floodplain. Construction workers would encounter seven to nine hazardous materials sites. Fifteen residences would experience traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards during the design year (2025), though two of the sites would be protected by noise abatement structures. 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: 040173, Draft EIS--276 pages and maps, Map Supplement, April 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Maryland 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/36351296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=MD+3+PROJECT+PLANNING+STUDY%2C+FROM+NORTH+OF+US+50+TO+SOUTH+OF+MD+32%2C+ANNE+ARUNDEL+AND+PRINCE+GEORGE%27S+COUNTIES%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Baltimore, Maryland; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). AN - 36351158; 10722-040167_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 141,890 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the city of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This draft supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces that 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 141,890 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. The eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lady lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. The soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, 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 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 040167, Supplemental EIS--382 pages and maps, Appendices1-3--401 pages and maps, Appendices 2-3--Map Supplement, Appendices 3-3--441 pages and maps, April 6, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Helicopters KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Mineral Resources KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Death Valley National Park KW - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ADDITION OF MANEUVER TRAINING LAND AT FORT IRWIN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 1996). AN - 15225932; 10722 AB - PURPOSE: The acquisition of approximately 141,890 acres of public lands to support the training mission of the U.S. Army National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, located in southeast California, is proposed. Fort Irwin encompasses approximately 642,000 acres of land near the city of Barstow. The NTC is a combat training center for thee Army, which trains 10 armored brigades each year in exercises known as rotations. Rotations last from 28 to 35 days and involve approximately 9,000 soldiers and Army civilians. The training exercises are designed to provide shoulders with the experience needed to excel at their missions. Advancements in military technology and the need to address those advancements are a driving factor for the proposed expansion of the fort. Larger ranges are needed to test and train personnel in the use of new weapon systems and strategies. For the purposes of the present proposal, the study area lies predominantly to the south, east, and west of the fort. The area also includes two parcels of land on Fort Irwin collectively known as the UTM 90 area; these areas generally lie south of the Universal Traverse Mercator 90 gridline but also include an additional parcel of land to the northwest of that coordinate. These lands were formerly used for heavy mechanized training, but were placed off-limits in 1991 due to the presence of the desert tortoise, a federally protected endangered species. This draft supplement to the draft EIS of December 1996 addressing the Army's land acquisition project for the National Training Center at Fort Irwin fully replaces that 1996 EIS. All alternatives considered in the earlier EIS are no longer under consideration. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative VI), are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative I) would result in the acquisition of 141,890 acres. This would provide for the reintroduction of the UTM 90 area into mechanized training use. The eastern portion of this alternative includes the southern portion of the Avawatz Mountains and runs parallel, northeast to southwest, along the utilities rights-of-way of the Bureau of Land Management's Utility Planning Corridor D. The southern portion of the area consists of the UTM 90 area. The western portion of the area includes a segment of the Paradise Mountains and two of the Superior lady lakes. Under Alternative I, a three-mile transit route through the National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Goldstone Complex would be improve for use by Fort Irwin personnel to allow access to Superior Valley. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The acquisition of additional maneuverable land would provide an expanded battle-space environment to enable the NTC to conduct its mission of training brigade-sized units in accordance with present and future joint and combined-arms operations doctrines. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Any ecological community occurring in terrain with a slope of less than 20 percent would be adversely affected. Soil and vegetation would be disturbed due to intensive use of tracked and wheeled vehicles, landing pads and similar facilities, and trenching for tank and gun emplacement. The soils on up to 141,890 acres of land would be adversely affected due to the crushing of rock outcrops, the disturbance of desert pavement, the compaction of upper soil layers, and wind and water erosion. There would be significant large-scale losses of vegetation in concentrated activity areas that are slow to recover. Large areas of Mojave creosote scrub would be lost, as would habitat for a population of desert tortoise and for Lane Mountain milk vetch, a federally protected plant species. Numerous archaeological and paleontological sites could be disturbed during training maneuvers. Maneuvers would require elimination of public access to the area for recreation and other purposes, including patent mining. One residence would be displace, and maneuvers could conflict with the mission of the Goldstone Complex LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-554), Public Law 106-554, 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 96-0528D, Volume 20, Number 6. JF - EPA number: 040167, Supplemental EIS--382 pages and maps, Appendices1-3--401 pages and maps, Appendices 2-3--Map Supplement, Appendices 3-3--441 pages and maps, April 6, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Defense Programs KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Helicopters KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Mineral Resources KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Death Valley National Park KW - National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001, Funding KW - Public Law 106-554, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15225932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.&rft.title=ADDITION+OF+MANEUVER+TRAINING+LAND+AT+FORT+IRWIN%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+1996%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHIPPS OCEAN PARK BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT,TOWN OF PALM BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36433513; 10718 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of shore protection for the shoreline surrounding Phipps Ocean Park within the town of Palm Beach, Florida is proposed. The study area suffers from critical erosion due to littoral drift attributable to Lake Worth Inlet and the adjacent armored shoreline and the existing headland features surrounding the area. Shoreline conditions and structures updrift of the project area exacerbate the erosion problem and, if remedial action is not taken, these conditions will lead to significant future erosion along the project area shoreline and the shoreline to the south. The recommended plan (Alternative 3) would include placement of approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of fill over approximately 1.9 miles of beach, between Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Monuments R-116 and R-126 and installation of 3.1 acres of hardbottom reef. Sand compatible with the existing beech would be obtained from two borrow areas located approximately 3,500 feet offshore between 1.5 and 2.6 miles south of the fill site. Fill would be transferred from the orrow areas by hydraulic dredge; construction by hopper dredge would not be allowed to avoid impacts to hardbottom biological communities in the vicinity of the borrow areas. Geotechnical analysis of the borrow area indicates that the material is suitable for he restoration of the beach and suitable for use by nesting sea turtles and subsequent hatching success. The borrow areas have been designed with buffer zones to avoid impacts to hardbottom communities in the vicinity of the areas. Mitigation of hardbottom communities within the fill area would be implemented. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and an alternative involving beach nourishment in combination with the placement of groin structures (Alternative 2). Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $9.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The recommended plan would mitigate long-term erosion impacts along Lake Worth Inlet and the armored coastline north of the project area; provide and maintain storm protection to upland improvements in the area; restore and maintain the beach for public recreational use; and restore and maintain the beach for marine turtle nesting purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging from the borrow sites and deposition of dredged sand at the shoreline would result in destruction of benthic organisms and benthic habitat, though benthic habitat at the dredging sites would recover. Hardbottom habitat would be significantly disturbed. During deposition of sand along the shoreline, recreational uses of the beach would be marred significantly. Beach fill activities could impact sea turtle nesting and/or hatching success. Dredging would result in a temporarily increase in turbidity in the localized water column. 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 02-0471D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040163, 1,996 pages, April 5, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Shores KW - Water Quality KW - Florida 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/36433513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHIPPS+OCEAN+PARK+BEACH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2CTOWN+OF+PALM+BEACH%2C+PALM+BEACH+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=PHIPPS+OCEAN+PARK+BEACH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2CTOWN+OF+PALM+BEACH%2C+PALM+BEACH+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHIPPS OCEAN PARK BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT,TOWN OF PALM BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PHIPPS OCEAN PARK BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT,TOWN OF PALM BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36356575; 10718-040163_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of shore protection for the shoreline surrounding Phipps Ocean Park within the town of Palm Beach, Florida is proposed. The study area suffers from critical erosion due to littoral drift attributable to Lake Worth Inlet and the adjacent armored shoreline and the existing headland features surrounding the area. Shoreline conditions and structures updrift of the project area exacerbate the erosion problem and, if remedial action is not taken, these conditions will lead to significant future erosion along the project area shoreline and the shoreline to the south. The recommended plan (Alternative 3) would include placement of approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of fill over approximately 1.9 miles of beach, between Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Monuments R-116 and R-126 and installation of 3.1 acres of hardbottom reef. Sand compatible with the existing beech would be obtained from two borrow areas located approximately 3,500 feet offshore between 1.5 and 2.6 miles south of the fill site. Fill would be transferred from the orrow areas by hydraulic dredge; construction by hopper dredge would not be allowed to avoid impacts to hardbottom biological communities in the vicinity of the borrow areas. Geotechnical analysis of the borrow area indicates that the material is suitable for he restoration of the beach and suitable for use by nesting sea turtles and subsequent hatching success. The borrow areas have been designed with buffer zones to avoid impacts to hardbottom communities in the vicinity of the areas. Mitigation of hardbottom communities within the fill area would be implemented. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and an alternative involving beach nourishment in combination with the placement of groin structures (Alternative 2). Estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $9.3 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The recommended plan would mitigate long-term erosion impacts along Lake Worth Inlet and the armored coastline north of the project area; provide and maintain storm protection to upland improvements in the area; restore and maintain the beach for public recreational use; and restore and maintain the beach for marine turtle nesting purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging from the borrow sites and deposition of dredged sand at the shoreline would result in destruction of benthic organisms and benthic habitat, though benthic habitat at the dredging sites would recover. Hardbottom habitat would be significantly disturbed. During deposition of sand along the shoreline, recreational uses of the beach would be marred significantly. Beach fill activities could impact sea turtle nesting and/or hatching success. Dredging would result in a temporarily increase in turbidity in the localized water column. 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 02-0471D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040163, 1,996 pages, April 5, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Shores KW - Water Quality KW - Florida 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/36356575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHIPPS+OCEAN+PARK+BEACH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2CTOWN+OF+PALM+BEACH%2C+PALM+BEACH+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=PHIPPS+OCEAN+PARK+BEACH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2CTOWN+OF+PALM+BEACH%2C+PALM+BEACH+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36441308; 10717 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline erosion control program along the Bogue Inlet to protect the town of Emerald Isle in southeastern North Carolina is proposed. Bogue Inlet, which is located on the border of Carteret and Onslow counties, provides access to recreational and commercial vessels between the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Bogue Inlet is bordered to the east by Bogue Banks approximately 25 miles west of Beaufort Inlet. The town of Emerald Isle encompasses the western 11 miles of the barrier island complex in Carteret County. West of Bogue Inlet is Bear Island, an undeveloped barrier island approximately three miles in length in eastern Onslow County. The town is suffering from the erosive effects of the eastward migration of the Bogue Inlet ocean bar channel, which has moved steadily eastward at an average rate of 93 feet per year. The eastward migration of the inlet channel has been accompanied by erosion of the inlet shoreline that borders the Pointe subdivision located on the extreme west end of the town. The eventually removal of existing sandbag revetments, which must be removed under state law, will result will result in the immediate loss of seven homes and a resumption of he erosion of the inlet shoreline. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives would include, variously, relocation of imperiled homes, construction of sandbag revetments, suspension of channel maintenance, channel replacement with or without beach nourishment, provision of a combination of sloping rubble revetment and terminal groin structures around the west end of the inlet shoreline into the ocean, and relocation of the Bogue Inlet bar channel through a dedicated program of channel maintenance in which material removed from the channel would be deposited on the Bogue Banks and Bear Island to maintain sediment balance on both islands. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would involve channel relocation with beach nourishment. The bar channel would be repositioned to a location between Bogue Banks and Bear Island and oriented along an alignment perpendicular to the adjacent islands. A portion of the material removed to create the new channel would be used to construct a sand dike across the existing channel, with the balance of the material used for beach nourishment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing near-term protection of the seven homes immediately threatened by the removal of the existing sandbag revetment, the project would provide for long-term protection to 31 to 50 homes and the associated town infrastructure over the next 10 years. Erosion along the Pointe shoreline would be eliminated or reduced. Public access from Inlet Drive to the inlet and beachfront shorelines would be re-established. The project would also improve recreational opportunities along the town's ocean shoreline and restore beach and inlet habitat along 700 feet of the Pointe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Channel dredging and beach nourishment would result in temporary disturbance of benthos, destruction of benthic habitat, and the release of sediments into the water column during dredging and disposition of sand. 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.), and River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0237D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040162, 287 pages; CD-ROMs (2, April 2, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Waterways KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36441308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-08-26&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 Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 2, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAMILTON CITY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GLENN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36438783; 10716 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control and ecosystem restoration project along the west bank of the Sacramento River in the vicinity of Hamilton City, Glenn County, California is proposed. Hamilton City has long been at risk of flooding from the river. Portions of the city and the surrounding area were flooded in 1974. Extensive flood fighting measures were necessary in 1983, 1986, 1995, 1997, and 1998 to avoid failure of the private "J' levee, which does not meet federal construction standards and could fail at river levels well below the top of the structure. Residents of the area were evacuated six times in the past 20 years. Native habitat and natural ecosystem function associated with the Sacramento River have been altered by the construction of the levee and conversion of the floodplain by agricultural and other rural developments. Bank protection at 29 sites, extending a total of 16.5 miles, has limited the river's natural meandering. Native habitat has been reduced to remnant patches along the river and in historic oxbows. These alterations have greatly diminished the abundance, richness, and complexity of riparian and other floodplain habitat in the study area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively recommended plan (Alternative 6) would involve the construction of a 6.8-mile setback levee, removal of most of the existing "J" leee, and active restoration o approximately 1,500 acres of native vegetation. From the northern terminus of the study area to south of Dunning Slough, a distance of 4.4 miles, the levee would have an average height of 7.5 feet; this segment of the levee would provide a 90 percent effectiveness confidence for containment of a 75-year flood event. The top-of-levee elevation of this segment of the levee would be set at the 320-year event water surface elevation. South of Dunning Slough, the levee height would drop to six feet for a distance of approximately 4,000 feet, providing a 90 percent effectiveness confidence for containment of a 35-year event. Just north of County Road 23, the setback levee would transition into a training dike, dropping to a height of three feet for approximately 1.6 miles; the training dike would perform with a 90 percent confidence of passing the 11-year event and the top-of-levee would be set at the 20 year water surface elevation. A gravel road would run along the entire length of the new levee, and the levee would be fenced along its landward side. Native vegetation would be restored on all project lands waterside of the new setback levee. Restoration measures would also take place on the land within Dunning Slough and the land south of property administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Existing orchards would be removed and replanted with native vegetation. Plantings would include 1,000 acres of riparian species, 260 acres of scrub, 150 acres of oak savannah, and 70 acres of grassland species. First cost of the proposed action is estimated at $43.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new levee system would provide adequate flood protection to Hamilton City and vicinity, including protection to agricultural and other rural developments in the area. Ecosystem restoration measures would return the river to more natural meandering patterns and replace rural development and cropland and orchards with native vegetation appropriate to the floodplain. Removal of the orchards from the floodplain would also decrease flood damages to agricultural property. The water quality of surface runoff into the river would improve due to increased vegetative cover, reduced tillage, reduced use of well water, and reduced application of agricultural chemicals. The quantity and variety of special status species would probably increase in the area; these species include anadromous fish, valley elderberry, Swainson's hawk, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee removal could result in temporary degradation of river water quality, potentially affecting federally protected anadromous fish, which could be affected in the long-term by placement of rock in bank habitat. Yellow-billed cuckoo, bank swallow, and Swainson's hawk, also federally protected, could experience temporary disturbance and/or displacement during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-62) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040161, Draft EIS--276 pages, Appendices--581 pages and maps, April 2, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1998, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438783?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAMILTON+CITY+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+GLENN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=HAMILTON+CITY+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+GLENN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAMILTON CITY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GLENN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - HAMILTON CITY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GLENN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36358541; 10716-040161_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control and ecosystem restoration project along the west bank of the Sacramento River in the vicinity of Hamilton City, Glenn County, California is proposed. Hamilton City has long been at risk of flooding from the river. Portions of the city and the surrounding area were flooded in 1974. Extensive flood fighting measures were necessary in 1983, 1986, 1995, 1997, and 1998 to avoid failure of the private "J' levee, which does not meet federal construction standards and could fail at river levels well below the top of the structure. Residents of the area were evacuated six times in the past 20 years. Native habitat and natural ecosystem function associated with the Sacramento River have been altered by the construction of the levee and conversion of the floodplain by agricultural and other rural developments. Bank protection at 29 sites, extending a total of 16.5 miles, has limited the river's natural meandering. Native habitat has been reduced to remnant patches along the river and in historic oxbows. These alterations have greatly diminished the abundance, richness, and complexity of riparian and other floodplain habitat in the study area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively recommended plan (Alternative 6) would involve the construction of a 6.8-mile setback levee, removal of most of the existing "J" leee, and active restoration o approximately 1,500 acres of native vegetation. From the northern terminus of the study area to south of Dunning Slough, a distance of 4.4 miles, the levee would have an average height of 7.5 feet; this segment of the levee would provide a 90 percent effectiveness confidence for containment of a 75-year flood event. The top-of-levee elevation of this segment of the levee would be set at the 320-year event water surface elevation. South of Dunning Slough, the levee height would drop to six feet for a distance of approximately 4,000 feet, providing a 90 percent effectiveness confidence for containment of a 35-year event. Just north of County Road 23, the setback levee would transition into a training dike, dropping to a height of three feet for approximately 1.6 miles; the training dike would perform with a 90 percent confidence of passing the 11-year event and the top-of-levee would be set at the 20 year water surface elevation. A gravel road would run along the entire length of the new levee, and the levee would be fenced along its landward side. Native vegetation would be restored on all project lands waterside of the new setback levee. Restoration measures would also take place on the land within Dunning Slough and the land south of property administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Existing orchards would be removed and replanted with native vegetation. Plantings would include 1,000 acres of riparian species, 260 acres of scrub, 150 acres of oak savannah, and 70 acres of grassland species. First cost of the proposed action is estimated at $43.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new levee system would provide adequate flood protection to Hamilton City and vicinity, including protection to agricultural and other rural developments in the area. Ecosystem restoration measures would return the river to more natural meandering patterns and replace rural development and cropland and orchards with native vegetation appropriate to the floodplain. Removal of the orchards from the floodplain would also decrease flood damages to agricultural property. The water quality of surface runoff into the river would improve due to increased vegetative cover, reduced tillage, reduced use of well water, and reduced application of agricultural chemicals. The quantity and variety of special status species would probably increase in the area; these species include anadromous fish, valley elderberry, Swainson's hawk, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee removal could result in temporary degradation of river water quality, potentially affecting federally protected anadromous fish, which could be affected in the long-term by placement of rock in bank habitat. Yellow-billed cuckoo, bank swallow, and Swainson's hawk, also federally protected, could experience temporary disturbance and/or displacement during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-62) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040161, Draft EIS--276 pages, Appendices--581 pages and maps, April 2, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1998, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAMILTON+CITY+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+GLENN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=HAMILTON+CITY+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+GLENN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAMILTON CITY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GLENN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - HAMILTON CITY FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, GLENN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36352548; 10716-040161_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control and ecosystem restoration project along the west bank of the Sacramento River in the vicinity of Hamilton City, Glenn County, California is proposed. Hamilton City has long been at risk of flooding from the river. Portions of the city and the surrounding area were flooded in 1974. Extensive flood fighting measures were necessary in 1983, 1986, 1995, 1997, and 1998 to avoid failure of the private "J' levee, which does not meet federal construction standards and could fail at river levels well below the top of the structure. Residents of the area were evacuated six times in the past 20 years. Native habitat and natural ecosystem function associated with the Sacramento River have been altered by the construction of the levee and conversion of the floodplain by agricultural and other rural developments. Bank protection at 29 sites, extending a total of 16.5 miles, has limited the river's natural meandering. Native habitat has been reduced to remnant patches along the river and in historic oxbows. These alterations have greatly diminished the abundance, richness, and complexity of riparian and other floodplain habitat in the study area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The tentatively recommended plan (Alternative 6) would involve the construction of a 6.8-mile setback levee, removal of most of the existing "J" leee, and active restoration o approximately 1,500 acres of native vegetation. From the northern terminus of the study area to south of Dunning Slough, a distance of 4.4 miles, the levee would have an average height of 7.5 feet; this segment of the levee would provide a 90 percent effectiveness confidence for containment of a 75-year flood event. The top-of-levee elevation of this segment of the levee would be set at the 320-year event water surface elevation. South of Dunning Slough, the levee height would drop to six feet for a distance of approximately 4,000 feet, providing a 90 percent effectiveness confidence for containment of a 35-year event. Just north of County Road 23, the setback levee would transition into a training dike, dropping to a height of three feet for approximately 1.6 miles; the training dike would perform with a 90 percent confidence of passing the 11-year event and the top-of-levee would be set at the 20 year water surface elevation. A gravel road would run along the entire length of the new levee, and the levee would be fenced along its landward side. Native vegetation would be restored on all project lands waterside of the new setback levee. Restoration measures would also take place on the land within Dunning Slough and the land south of property administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Existing orchards would be removed and replanted with native vegetation. Plantings would include 1,000 acres of riparian species, 260 acres of scrub, 150 acres of oak savannah, and 70 acres of grassland species. First cost of the proposed action is estimated at $43.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new levee system would provide adequate flood protection to Hamilton City and vicinity, including protection to agricultural and other rural developments in the area. Ecosystem restoration measures would return the river to more natural meandering patterns and replace rural development and cropland and orchards with native vegetation appropriate to the floodplain. Removal of the orchards from the floodplain would also decrease flood damages to agricultural property. The water quality of surface runoff into the river would improve due to increased vegetative cover, reduced tillage, reduced use of well water, and reduced application of agricultural chemicals. The quantity and variety of special status species would probably increase in the area; these species include anadromous fish, valley elderberry, Swainson's hawk, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee removal could result in temporary degradation of river water quality, potentially affecting federally protected anadromous fish, which could be affected in the long-term by placement of rock in bank habitat. Yellow-billed cuckoo, bank swallow, and Swainson's hawk, also federally protected, could experience temporary disturbance and/or displacement during construction. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-62) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040161, Draft EIS--276 pages, Appendices--581 pages and maps, April 2, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Insects KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1998, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAMILTON+CITY+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+GLENN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=HAMILTON+CITY+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+AND+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION%2C+GLENN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 2, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36351033; 10717-040162_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline erosion control program along the Bogue Inlet to protect the town of Emerald Isle in southeastern North Carolina is proposed. Bogue Inlet, which is located on the border of Carteret and Onslow counties, provides access to recreational and commercial vessels between the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Bogue Inlet is bordered to the east by Bogue Banks approximately 25 miles west of Beaufort Inlet. The town of Emerald Isle encompasses the western 11 miles of the barrier island complex in Carteret County. West of Bogue Inlet is Bear Island, an undeveloped barrier island approximately three miles in length in eastern Onslow County. The town is suffering from the erosive effects of the eastward migration of the Bogue Inlet ocean bar channel, which has moved steadily eastward at an average rate of 93 feet per year. The eastward migration of the inlet channel has been accompanied by erosion of the inlet shoreline that borders the Pointe subdivision located on the extreme west end of the town. The eventually removal of existing sandbag revetments, which must be removed under state law, will result will result in the immediate loss of seven homes and a resumption of he erosion of the inlet shoreline. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives would include, variously, relocation of imperiled homes, construction of sandbag revetments, suspension of channel maintenance, channel replacement with or without beach nourishment, provision of a combination of sloping rubble revetment and terminal groin structures around the west end of the inlet shoreline into the ocean, and relocation of the Bogue Inlet bar channel through a dedicated program of channel maintenance in which material removed from the channel would be deposited on the Bogue Banks and Bear Island to maintain sediment balance on both islands. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would involve channel relocation with beach nourishment. The bar channel would be repositioned to a location between Bogue Banks and Bear Island and oriented along an alignment perpendicular to the adjacent islands. A portion of the material removed to create the new channel would be used to construct a sand dike across the existing channel, with the balance of the material used for beach nourishment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing near-term protection of the seven homes immediately threatened by the removal of the existing sandbag revetment, the project would provide for long-term protection to 31 to 50 homes and the associated town infrastructure over the next 10 years. Erosion along the Pointe shoreline would be eliminated or reduced. Public access from Inlet Drive to the inlet and beachfront shorelines would be re-established. The project would also improve recreational opportunities along the town's ocean shoreline and restore beach and inlet habitat along 700 feet of the Pointe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Channel dredging and beach nourishment would result in temporary disturbance of benthos, destruction of benthic habitat, and the release of sediments into the water column during dredging and disposition of sand. 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.), and River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0237D, Volume 28, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 040162, 287 pages; CD-ROMs (2, April 2, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Waterways KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 2, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Field indicators and literature summary for an arid southwestern aquatic resource delineation at Twentynine Palms, CA AN - 742895533; 2006-079002 AB - In 1994, the U.S. Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) in Twentynine Palms, CA, requested a delineation of their aquatic resources. MCAGCC is located within the central Mojave Desert, where annual precipitation levels are insufficient to produce the three parameters typical of wetlands (i.e. vegetation, soils, and hydrology). At MCAGCC, two major aquatic resource types other than wetlands regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as 'Waters of the United States' (WoUS) were delineated at the planning-level scale. As part of the delineation process, new and unreported hydrology field indicators observed in the field were evaluated within the context of 48 literature citations. These hydrology indicators were used in the delineation process for identifying the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) under Section 404 of the CWA for WoUS. A report was generated as a result of the study conducted at Twentynine Palms. JF - ERDC Technical Note AU - Lichvar, Robert W Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - April 2004 SP - 3 PB - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - eolian features KW - water quality KW - terrestrial environment KW - arid environment KW - physical geology KW - watersheds KW - pollution KW - Twentynine Palms California KW - vegetation KW - salinity KW - deserts KW - ground water KW - environmental management KW - California KW - wetlands KW - Mojave Desert KW - ecology KW - military facilities KW - water resources KW - San Bernardino County California KW - aquatic environment KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742895533?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=Lichvar%2C+Robert+W&rft.aulast=Lichvar&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Field+indicators+and+literature+summary+for+an+arid+southwestern+aquatic+resource+delineation+at+Twentynine+Palms%2C+CA&rft.title=Field+indicators+and+literature+summary+for+an+arid+southwestern+aquatic+resource+delineation+at+Twentynine+Palms%2C+CA&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf//tnwrap04-1.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 - Number of references - 7 N1 - Availability - National Technical Information Service, (703)605-6900, order number ADA430507NEG, Springfield, VA, United States N1 - PubXState - MS N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Sept. 11, 2006 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-16 N1 - CODEN - #06042 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquatic environment; arid environment; California; deserts; ecology; environmental management; eolian features; ground water; hydrology; military facilities; Mojave Desert; physical geology; pollution; salinity; San Bernardino County California; terrestrial environment; Twentynine Palms California; United States; vegetation; water quality; water resources; watersheds; wetlands ER - TY - JOUR T1 - TNT particle size distributions from detonated 155-mm howitzer rounds. AN - 71678892; 14987934 AB - To achieve sustainable range management and avoid or minimize environmental contamination, the Army needs to know the amount of explosives deposited on ranges from different munitions and how these are degraded and transported under different geological and climatic conditions. The physical form of the deposited explosives has a bearing on this problem, yet the shapes and size distributions of the explosive particles remaining after detonations are not known. We collected residues from 8 high-order and 6 low-order non-tactical detonations of TNT-filled 155-mm rounds. We found significant variation in the amount of TNT scattered from the high-order detonations, ranging from 0.00001 to 2% of the TNT in the original shell. All low-order detonations scattered percent-level amounts of TNT. We imaged thousands of TNT particles and determined the size, mass and surface-area distributions of particles collected from one high-order and one low-order detonation. For the high-order detonation, particles smaller than 1 mm contribute most of the mass and surface area of the TNT scattered. For the low-order detonation, most of the scattered TNT mass was in the form of un-heated, centimeter-sized pieces whereas most of the surface area was again from particles smaller than 1 mm. We also observed that the large pieces of TNT disintegrate readily, giving rise to many smaller particles that can quickly dissolve. We suggest picking up the large pieces of TNT before they disintegrate to become point sources of contamination. JF - Chemosphere AU - Taylor, Susan AU - Hewitt, Alan AU - Lever, James AU - Hayes, Charlotte AU - Perovich, Laura AU - Thorne, Phil AU - Daghlian, Chuck AD - Cold Regions Research & Eng. Lab., CRREL, Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03766-1290, USA. susan.taylor@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - April 2004 SP - 357 EP - 367 VL - 55 IS - 3 SN - 0045-6535, 0045-6535 KW - Soil Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Trinitrotoluene KW - 118-96-7 KW - Index Medicus KW - Snow KW - Particle Size KW - Microscopy, Electron, Scanning KW - Trinitrotoluene -- chemistry KW - Explosions KW - Soil Pollutants -- analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/71678892?accountid=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=Chemosphere&rft.atitle=TNT+particle+size+distributions+from+detonated+155-mm+howitzer+rounds.&rft.au=Taylor%2C+Susan%3BHewitt%2C+Alan%3BLever%2C+James%3BHayes%2C+Charlotte%3BPerovich%2C+Laura%3BThorne%2C+Phil%3BDaghlian%2C+Chuck&rft.aulast=Taylor&rft.aufirst=Susan&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=357&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chemosphere&rft.issn=00456535&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2004-05-11 N1 - Date created - 2004-02-27 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Numerical modeling of liquefaction and comparison with centrifuge tests AN - 51744563; 2005-017486 AB - The prediction of liquefaction and resulting displacements is a major concern for earth structures located in regions of moderate to high seismicity. Conventional procedures used to assess liquefaction commonly predict the triggering of liquefaction to depths of 50 m or more. Remediation to prevent or curtail liquefaction at these depths can be very expensive. Field experience during past earthquakes indicates that liquefaction has mainly occurred at depths less than about 15, and some recent dynamic centrifuge model testing initially appeared to confirm a depth or confining-stress limitation on the occurrence of liquefaction. Such a limitation on liquefaction could greatly reduce remediation costs. In this paper an effective stress numerical modeling procedure is used to assess these centrifuge tests. The results indicate that a lack of complete saturation and densification at depth arising from the application of the high-acceleration field are largely responsible for the apparent limitation on liquefaction at depth observed in some centrifuge tests. JF - Canadian Geotechnical Journal = Revue Canadienne de Geotechnique AU - Byrne, Peter M AU - Park, Sung-Sik AU - Beaty, Michael AU - Sharp, Michael AU - Gonzalez, Lenart AU - Abdoun, Tarek Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - April 2004 SP - 193 EP - 211 PB - National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON VL - 41 IS - 2 SN - 0008-3674, 0008-3674 KW - soil mechanics KW - sand KW - numerical models KW - clastic sediments KW - stress KW - plastic flow KW - liquefaction KW - soil-structure interface KW - centrifuge methods KW - seismicity KW - pore pressure KW - shear KW - sediments KW - permeability KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51744563?accountid=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=Canadian+Geotechnical+Journal+%3D+Revue+Canadienne+de+Geotechnique&rft.atitle=Numerical+modeling+of+liquefaction+and+comparison+with+centrifuge+tests&rft.au=Byrne%2C+Peter+M%3BPark%2C+Sung-Sik%3BBeaty%2C+Michael%3BSharp%2C+Michael%3BGonzalez%2C+Lenart%3BAbdoun%2C+Tarek&rft.aulast=Byrne&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=193&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Canadian+Geotechnical+Journal+%3D+Revue+Canadienne+de+Geotechnique&rft.issn=00083674&rft_id=info:doi/10.1139%2FT03-088 L2 - http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp-ps/journalDetail.jsp?jcode=cgj&lang=eng LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 25 N1 - PubXState - ON N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - CGJOAH N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - centrifuge methods; clastic sediments; liquefaction; numerical models; permeability; plastic flow; pore pressure; sand; sediments; seismicity; shear; soil mechanics; soil-structure interface; stress DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/T03-088 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. AN - 36381325; 10710-040155_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more open-water dredged material disposal sites in western and central Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York is proposed. If designed, one or more of these sites could be used for disposal of material dredged from navigation projects and other sources associated with Connecticut and New York rivers, harbors, and coastal areas if the resulting material was found to be suitable for open-water disposal. Currently, no disposal sites are designated for long-term use within Long Island Sound. The currently used sites are authorized for periods of time that will end at various times in the relatively near future. Initial screening eliminated open ocean, upland, beneficial use, and treatment technology alternatives. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and eleven specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as well as evaluation factors specific to Long Island Sound, the four open-water sites were selected for detailed consideration in this final EIS, along with a No Action Alternative. Two of these sites are currently active dredged material disposal sites, while the other two are inactive historic dredged material disposal sites. The original site analysis encompassed the area of Long Island Sound between the confluence of the East River and the Harlem River at Hells Gate on the western end and Mulberry Point, Connecticut to Mattituck Point, New York on the eastern end. Subsequently the area was modified to encompass the western and central regions of the sound. The preferred alternatives would result in the use of two sites. The Western Long Island Sound site is a 1.2-by-1.3-nautical-mile rectangular area in the Western Long Island Sound that has been used for dredged material disposal since 1982. The site is located 2.7 nautical miles north of Lloyd Point, New York and 2.5 nautical miles south of Long Neck Point near Noroton, Connecticut in water depths of 79 to 118 feet. The Central Long Island Sound Alternative, which has been one of the most active dredged material disposal sites in New England, is a rectangular site, approximately two nautical moles by one nautical mile, located 5.6 nautical miles south of South End Point near East Haven, Connecticut in water depths ranging from 59 to 74 feet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the sites would allow for periodic dredging and dredged material disposal to maintain the river, harbor, and coastal channels under federal jurisdiction, maintaining safe navigation and efficient movement of marine commerce. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal operations would result in temporary increase in suspended solids in the water column in the vicinity of and down-current of the disposal site. The dumped material would bury non-motile benthic organisms. Bottom topographies at the sites would be altered. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0109D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040155, Executive Summary--21 pages, Final EIS--451 pages, Site Monitoring/Management Plans--156 pages, Agency Coordination and Congressional Correspondence--30 pages, Response to Comments--632 pages, Correspondence--46 pages, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Connecticut KW - Long Island Sound KW - New York 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/36381325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363223; 10714-040159_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36363121; 10714-040159_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36363121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36358931; 10714-040159_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36358409; 10714-040159_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36356451; 10714-040159_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36354371; 10714-040159_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36354216; 10714-040159_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353955; 10714-040159_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353835; 10714-040159_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353770; 10714-040159_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353325; 10714-040159_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353096; 10714-040159_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36353017; 10714-040159_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36352960; 10714-040159_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36352424; 10714-040159_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLOSURE OF AL BLACK RECREATION AREA AT THE COCHITI OUTLET WORKS IN SANDOVAL COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CLOSURE OF AL BLACK RECREATION AREA AT THE COCHITI OUTLET WORKS IN SANDOVAL COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 36351533; 10707-040152_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The closure of the Al Black Recreation Area at the Cochiti Lake outlet works in Sandoval County, New Mexico is proposed. ht Cochiti Dam and Lake are located north of Interstate 25 between Bernalillo and Santa Fe. The project was authorized for flood and sediment control. T The owner of the property, the Pueblo de Cochiti (Pueblo), granted easements to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on portions of their lands. The eight-acre Al Black area is located between the west face of the dam and New Mexico Highway 22 just south of the Cochiti Recreation area. The Pueblo now requests that the facility be closed for religious and cultural reasons. The Corps has approved the request since the recreation facility is not necessary for the efficient operation and maintenance of the project, as provided under a December 17, 1975 Corp/Pueblo Memorandum of Understanding. The proposed action would result in the closure of the outlet works area to public access and recreation. The physical facilities would be removed and the area restored in coordination with the Pueblo. Six recreation replacement site relocation alternatives were analyzed. Of these, five were eliminated from further consideration due to public controversy, environmental issues, or real estate problems. The selected relocation alternative provides for two new universally accessible public fishing areas and facilities on Cochiti Lake. This alternative would replace most of the public recreation resources lost through the closure of the existing facility. In addition to the proposed closure action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the outlet works recreation area would remain open to the public. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Closure of the facility would eliminate public activities that interfere with the religious and cultural life of the Pueblo members. Removal of the recreational facilities would allow the Pueblo to further their plans to implement a community-wide restoration that involves the additional of community infrastructure and the implementation of natural resource restoration work that would collectively provide the means for reintegration of family activities necessary to sustain the Pueblo's cultural and traditional integrity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Closure of the outlet works recreational area would result in a significant loss of regionally unique coldwater fishing opportunity currently available at the site. In addition, construction of the permanent replacement site on existing project land would result in a net loss of public recreational area. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645) and Public Law 88-290. JF - EPA number: 040152, 513 pages, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Indian Reservations KW - Lakes KW - Minorities KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Al Black Recreation Area KW - Cochiti Lake KW - New Mexico KW - Flood Control Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 88-290, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLOSURE+OF+AL+BLACK+RECREATION+AREA+AT+THE+COCHITI+OUTLET+WORKS+IN+SANDOVAL+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CLOSURE+OF+AL+BLACK+RECREATION+AREA+AT+THE+COCHITI+OUTLET+WORKS+IN+SANDOVAL+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 16] T2 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 36351090; 10714-040159_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Controlled release, blind test of DNAPL remediation by ethanol flushing AN - 20218943; 5860167 AB - A dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) source zone was established within a sheet-pile isolated cell through a controlled release of perchloroethylene (PCE) to evaluate DNAPL remediation by in-situ cosolvent flushing. Ethanol was used as the cosolvent, and the main remedial mechanism was enhanced dissolution based on the phase behavior of the water-ethanol-PCE system. Based on the knowledge of the actual PCE volume introduced into the cell, it was estimated that 83 L of PCE were present at the start of the test. Over a 40-day period, 64% of the PCE was removed by flushing the cell with an alcohol solution of approximately 70% ethanol and 30% water. High removal efficiencies at the end of the test indicated that more PCE could have been removed had it been possible to continue the demonstration. The ethanol solution extracted from the cell was recycled during the test using activated carbon and air stripping treatment. Both of these treatment processes were successful in removing PCE for recycling purposes, with minimal impact on the ethanol content in the treated fluids. Results from pre- and post-flushing partitioning tracer tests overestimated the treatment performance. However, both of these tracer tests missed significant amounts of the PCE present, likely due to inaccessibility of the PCE. The tracer results suggest that some PCE was inaccessible to the ethanol solution which led to the inefficient PCE removal rates observed. The flux-averaged aqueous PCE concentrations measured in the post-flushing tracer test were reduced by a factor of 3 to 4 in the extraction wells that showed the highest PCE removal compared to those concentrations in the pre-flushing tracer test. JF - Journal of Contaminant Hydrology AU - Brooks, M C AU - Annable, MD AU - Rao, PSC AU - Hatfield, K AU - Jawitz, J W AU - Wise, W R AU - Wood, AL AU - Enfield, C G AD - Hydrologic Investigations Section, US Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL 32207, USA, Michael.C.Brooks@saj02.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - Apr 2004 SP - 281 EP - 297 PB - Elsevier Science B.V., P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl/] VL - 69 IS - 3-4 SN - 0169-7722, 0169-7722 KW - Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Alcohols KW - nonaqueous phase liquids KW - Groundwater Pollution KW - Ethanol KW - W 30950:Waste Treatment & Pollution Clean-up KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - SW 3070:Water quality control KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20218943?accountid=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+Contaminant+Hydrology&rft.atitle=Controlled+release%2C+blind+test+of+DNAPL+remediation+by+ethanol+flushing&rft.au=Brooks%2C+M+C%3BAnnable%2C+MD%3BRao%2C+PSC%3BHatfield%2C+K%3BJawitz%2C+J+W%3BWise%2C+W+R%3BWood%2C+AL%3BEnfield%2C+C+G&rft.aulast=Brooks&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=281&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Contaminant+Hydrology&rft.issn=01697722&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0169-7722%2803%2900158-X LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Ethanol; nonaqueous phase liquids; Groundwater Pollution DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7722(03)00158-X ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Boom time AN - 18024328; 5981612 AB - On 23 February 2004, thousands of citizens gathered along the banks of the Rappahannock River in Fredericksburg, Virginia, US for an historic event. Within a few hours, a portion of Embrey dam, which had stood for almost 100 years, would be blasted by over 270kg of explosives. Virginia senator John Warner, a longtime supporter of the dam's removal spoke at a ceremony prior to the breaching. `As a result of today's event, fish will be able to swim unhindered from the Chesapeake to the Blue Ridge, and generations that follow us will be better able to enjoy all that the Rappahannock has to offer,' he said. `This event strengthens our relationships with our federal and state partners and other military organisations,' commented assistant secretary of the Army for Civil Works John Paul Woodley, who oversees the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the lead agency on the project. Later, they moved to the edge of the stage with Fredericksburg mayor Bill Beck, ready to give the `go order' to the Army and Air Force Reserve troops that stood waiting to light the charges. They were joined by representatives of all the other partner agencies who had worked together in the effort, including the Department of Defense, the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Fish & Wildlife Service. JF - International Water Power and Dam Construction AU - Allen, N AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, USA Y1 - 2004/04// PY - 2004 DA - April 2004 SP - 34 VL - 56 IS - 4 SN - 0306-400X, 0306-400X KW - Aqualine Abstracts KW - Environmental Effects KW - USA, Virginia, Fredericksburg KW - USA, Virginia, Rappahannock R. KW - Wildlife KW - Ecological Effects KW - Dam Effects KW - Fish Behavior KW - AQ 00005:Underground Services and Water Use UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18024328?accountid=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+Water+Power+and+Dam+Construction&rft.atitle=Boom+time&rft.au=Allen%2C+N&rft.aulast=Allen&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=34&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Water+Power+and+Dam+Construction&rft.issn=0306400X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Environmental Effects; Wildlife; Ecological Effects; Dam Effects; Fish Behavior; USA, Virginia, Fredericksburg; USA, Virginia, Rappahannock R. ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLOSURE OF AL BLACK RECREATION AREA AT THE COCHITI OUTLET WORKS IN SANDOVAL COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 16345802; 10707 AB - PURPOSE: The closure of the Al Black Recreation Area at the Cochiti Lake outlet works in Sandoval County, New Mexico is proposed. ht Cochiti Dam and Lake are located north of Interstate 25 between Bernalillo and Santa Fe. The project was authorized for flood and sediment control. T The owner of the property, the Pueblo de Cochiti (Pueblo), granted easements to the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for construction, operation, and maintenance of the project on portions of their lands. The eight-acre Al Black area is located between the west face of the dam and New Mexico Highway 22 just south of the Cochiti Recreation area. The Pueblo now requests that the facility be closed for religious and cultural reasons. The Corps has approved the request since the recreation facility is not necessary for the efficient operation and maintenance of the project, as provided under a December 17, 1975 Corp/Pueblo Memorandum of Understanding. The proposed action would result in the closure of the outlet works area to public access and recreation. The physical facilities would be removed and the area restored in coordination with the Pueblo. Six recreation replacement site relocation alternatives were analyzed. Of these, five were eliminated from further consideration due to public controversy, environmental issues, or real estate problems. The selected relocation alternative provides for two new universally accessible public fishing areas and facilities on Cochiti Lake. This alternative would replace most of the public recreation resources lost through the closure of the existing facility. In addition to the proposed closure action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, under which the outlet works recreation area would remain open to the public. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Closure of the facility would eliminate public activities that interfere with the religious and cultural life of the Pueblo members. Removal of the recreational facilities would allow the Pueblo to further their plans to implement a community-wide restoration that involves the additional of community infrastructure and the implementation of natural resource restoration work that would collectively provide the means for reintegration of family activities necessary to sustain the Pueblo's cultural and traditional integrity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Closure of the outlet works recreational area would result in a significant loss of regionally unique coldwater fishing opportunity currently available at the site. In addition, construction of the permanent replacement site on existing project land would result in a net loss of public recreational area. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645) and Public Law 88-290. JF - EPA number: 040152, 513 pages, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Fish KW - Indian Reservations KW - Lakes KW - Minorities KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Al Black Recreation Area KW - Cochiti Lake KW - New Mexico KW - Flood Control Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 88-290, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLOSURE+OF+AL+BLACK+RECREATION+AREA+AT+THE+COCHITI+OUTLET+WORKS+IN+SANDOVAL+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=CLOSURE+OF+AL+BLACK+RECREATION+AREA+AT+THE+COCHITI+OUTLET+WORKS+IN+SANDOVAL+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SR 99 ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT AND SEAWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. AN - 15224895; 10714 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route (SR) 99) and the Alaskan Way Seawall in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. The two facilities are at the end of their useful lives and must be replaced. The SR 99 corridor provides vital transportation connections to and through downtown Seattle as well as between various other regional destinations. The seawall supports Seattle's central waterfront, the Alaskan Way surface street, and numerous utilities serving the city's urban core. The seawall also supports soil surrounding the foundations of the viaduct. Failure of either structure, which is located in a seismically active area, would create severe hardships for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include reconstruction of the viaduct, construction of an aerial highway, provision of a six-lane tunnel in the central section of the corridor, provision of a four-lane bypass tunnel in the central section of the corridor, and replacement of the viaduct with an six-lane at-grade highway. All alternatives would include replacement of the seawall, either by rebuilding it, which would involve strengthening the surrounding soils and adding drilled shafts behind the existing seawall, or by replacing the seawall with a new seawall behind the existing structure. Depending on the action alternative considered, cost of the project ranges from $2.5 billion to $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound seawall and viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility and accessibility for travelers and freight interests using the corridor. Tunnel and at-grade alternatives would result in removal of the viaduct, opening views of Puget Sound and creating opportunities for connections between recreational resources and the city. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of eight to 20 commercial buildings. All action alternatives would result in the displacement of Alaska Square, a small public access shoreline viewing area. All alternatives would also result in the alteration of the Waterfront Trail. Demolition of the existing viaduct and the seawall would result in the loss of two structures eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The number of parking spaces available in the downtown Seattle area would decline regardless of the action alternative chosen; from 270 to 720 spaces would be lost. Excepting the tunnel alternatives, all alternatives would result in peak hour traffic-generated noise levels exceeding federal standards by the year 2030. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040159, 172 pages (Oversized), CD-ROM, April 1, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-D KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15224895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SR+99+ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+AND+SEAWALL+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 1, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ARROWHEAD-WESTON TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSSING OF THE ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY, WASHBURN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 36439119; 10701 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to allow the construction of a transmission line crossing of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway in Washburn County, Wisconsin is proposed, The crossing would be part of the Arrowhead-Weston Electric Transmission Line Project, to be undertaken by the applicants (Minnesota Power, the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and the American Transmission Company). The transmission line would extend 220 miles from Duluth, Minnesota to Wausau, Wisconsin. The crossing would be located approximately 10 five miles west of the town of Hayward near the community of Stinnet. The applicants' request includes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5). The applicant's preferred river crossing alternative (Alternative 1), which is also the federally preferred alternative, would involve approximately 6,000 of land extending from US 63 to Townline Road, of which 4,500 feet is part of the designated riverway and 1,500 feet is private property located immediately north of the riverway. The 1,500-foot segment of private property was included in the application since three of the river crossing alternatives would include the construction of an access road across this segment. The width of the river crossing rights-of-way (ROW) request area includes the existing 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line ROW and additional width necessary for construction of each of the alternatives. The preferred alternative would provide for the construction of double-circuit, alternating current, 161- and 345-kV transmission lines supported by 130- to 150-foot single-shaft steel structures. The crossing would require nine 70-foot wooden H-frame structures associated with the existing 161-kV transmission line would be removed and eight single-shaft steel structures would be erected to replace them. Nine overhead conductors and two shield wires would cross the affected area. One of the two shield wires would be an optical ground wire. This option would require 20 feet of additional ROW for construction and operation. Hence, the overall ROW width would be approximately 120 feet. Due to the proposed alignment of the new ROW centerline 14 feet to the west of the existing centerline, the easternmost four feet of the existing ROW would not be part of the new ROW. Construction activities would be undertaken in 2006 and continue for two to 12 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for completion of the transmission line in the vicinity of the river, ensuring the provision of power to the regional electricity grid, thereby supporting the continued economic growth of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 6.79 acres of land, and 0.01 acre of maintenance/operation disturbance would continue following construction. The project would have a reclainable surface (i.e., temporary disturbance area that would be reclaimed following construction) of 6.78 acres. The cleared ROW, transmission line and the steet-shaft structures would significantly alter the visual integrity of the scenic riverway, degrading the recreational experience of recreationists. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040146, 871 pages and maps, March 26, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 04-09 KW - Electric Power KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - St. Croix National Scenic Riverway KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439119?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ARROWHEAD-WESTON+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+CROSSING+OF+THE+ST.+CROIX+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVERWAY%2C+WASHBURN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ARROWHEAD-WESTON+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+CROSSING+OF+THE+ST.+CROIX+NATIONAL+SCENIC+RIVERWAY%2C+WASHBURN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ARROWHEAD-WESTON TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSSING OF THE ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY, WASHBURN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ARROWHEAD-WESTON TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSSING OF THE ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY, WASHBURN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 36352331; 10701-040146_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit to allow the construction of a transmission line crossing of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway in Washburn County, Wisconsin is proposed, The crossing would be part of the Arrowhead-Weston Electric Transmission Line Project, to be undertaken by the applicants (Minnesota Power, the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, and the American Transmission Company). The transmission line would extend 220 miles from Duluth, Minnesota to Wausau, Wisconsin. The crossing would be located approximately 10 five miles west of the town of Hayward near the community of Stinnet. The applicants' request includes five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 5). The applicant's preferred river crossing alternative (Alternative 1), which is also the federally preferred alternative, would involve approximately 6,000 of land extending from US 63 to Townline Road, of which 4,500 feet is part of the designated riverway and 1,500 feet is private property located immediately north of the riverway. The 1,500-foot segment of private property was included in the application since three of the river crossing alternatives would include the construction of an access road across this segment. The width of the river crossing rights-of-way (ROW) request area includes the existing 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line ROW and additional width necessary for construction of each of the alternatives. The preferred alternative would provide for the construction of double-circuit, alternating current, 161- and 345-kV transmission lines supported by 130- to 150-foot single-shaft steel structures. The crossing would require nine 70-foot wooden H-frame structures associated with the existing 161-kV transmission line would be removed and eight single-shaft steel structures would be erected to replace them. Nine overhead conductors and two shield wires would cross the affected area. One of the two shield wires would be an optical ground wire. This option would require 20 feet of additional ROW for construction and operation. Hence, the overall ROW width would be approximately 120 feet. Due to the proposed alignment of the new ROW centerline 14 feet to the west of the existing centerline, the easternmost four feet of the existing ROW would not be part of the new ROW. Construction activities would be undertaken in 2006 and continue for two to 12 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for completion of the transmission line in the vicinity of the river, ensuring the provision of power to the regional electricity grid, thereby supporting the continued economic growth of the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 6.79 acres of land, and 0.01 acre of maintenance/operation disturbance would continue following construction. The project would have a reclainable surface (i.e., temporary disturbance area that would be reclaimed following construction) of 6.78 acres. The cleared ROW, transmission line and the steet-shaft structures would significantly alter the visual integrity of the scenic riverway, degrading the recreational experience of recreationists. 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 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040146, 871 pages and maps, March 26, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 04-09 KW - Electric Power KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - St. Croix National Scenic Riverway KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 26, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR: BART EXTENSION TO MILPITAS, SAN JOSE AND SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36439333; 10690 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 16.3-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system from just south of the future BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont to the cities of ilpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, California are proposed. The project area, known as the Silivon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor, extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, encompassing approximately 100 square miles. The corridor suffers from extreme traffic congestion and the attendant delays in travel time and air quality impacts. The proposed BART extension would include seven stations at the outset and one additional station in the future, along the alignment and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard in San Jose/Santa Clara. The extension would lie within the Union Pacific Railroad San Jose Branch rights-of-way, now owned by the Valley Transportation Authority. The extension would run between the Warms Spring Station and Santa Clara Street in San Jose, continuing in a subway under public and private property through east and downtown San Jose, and terminate at-grade near the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. Stations would be provided at Calaveras Boulevard, between the Montague Expressway and Capitol Avenue, at Verryessa Road, at 28th Street between East Julian and East Santa Clara streets, at East Santa Clara Street between Fourth and Seventh streets, at West Santa Clara Street between First Street and Almaden Avenue, south of and parallel to West Santa Clara Street between Autumn and White streets, at Benton Street and Broad Road between El Camino Real and Coleman Avenue. The station at Calaveras Boulevard would be deferred until a future date. Service for the BAR extension could begin in 2013 if funding becomes available. In addition to the proposed BART Alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, a New Starts Baseline Alternative, and two Minimum Operating Segment scenarios under the BART Alternative. Cost of the BART extension alternative is estimated at $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The BART system extension would improve public transit service in the corridor, increasing transit ridership and thereby reducing congestion on highways and local roads. Severe congestion on Interstate 880 (I-880) and I-680 between Alameda County and Santa Clara County would be enhanced. Access would improve throughout the San Francisco Bay region, including southern Alameda County, central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley, Central Valley, and Silicon Valley. Regional connectivity would be enhanced through expanded, interconnected raid transit services between the BART system in Fremont and the light rail transit and Caltrain in Silicon Valley. Modal options in the corridor would be expanded significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the extension would result in the displacement of 46 to 101 businesses, one to five residences, 400 flea market stalls, 1,025 storage tenants, two ad signs, and one utility facility. The project would encroach somewhat into the 100-year floodplain and affect less than two acres of wetlands, 15 acres of habitat for the federally protected Congdon's tarplant and 11.4 acres for the federally protected burrowing owl. Loss of 2.6 acres of Central Coast Cottonwood Sycamore could affect the federally protected several other special status species. Loss of grassland could impact loggerhead shrike. A small strip of dedicated parkland would be lost. Eight historic and prehistoric sites would lie within the impact area. The system would traverse and area affected by seismic activity. Construction workers would encounter 21 hazardous materials sites. Train operation would result in noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards at numerous sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040134, 1,417 pages, March 19, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%3A+BART+EXTENSION+TO+MILPITAS%2C+SAN+JOSE+AND+SANTA+CLARA%2C+COUNTY+OF+SANTA+CLARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%3A+BART+EXTENSION+TO+MILPITAS%2C+SAN+JOSE+AND+SANTA+CLARA%2C+COUNTY+OF+SANTA+CLARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR: BART EXTENSION TO MILPITAS, SAN JOSE AND SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SILICON VALLEY RAPID TRANSIT CORRIDOR: BART EXTENSION TO MILPITAS, SAN JOSE AND SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36351350; 10690-040134_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 16.3-mile extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail system from just south of the future BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont to the cities of ilpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, California are proposed. The project area, known as the Silivon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor, extends over 20 miles from the city of Fremont in southwestern Alameda County through the cities of Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara in Santa Clara County, encompassing approximately 100 square miles. The corridor suffers from extreme traffic congestion and the attendant delays in travel time and air quality impacts. The proposed BART extension would include seven stations at the outset and one additional station in the future, along the alignment and a maintenance and vehicle storage yard in San Jose/Santa Clara. The extension would lie within the Union Pacific Railroad San Jose Branch rights-of-way, now owned by the Valley Transportation Authority. The extension would run between the Warms Spring Station and Santa Clara Street in San Jose, continuing in a subway under public and private property through east and downtown San Jose, and terminate at-grade near the Santa Clara Caltrain Station. Stations would be provided at Calaveras Boulevard, between the Montague Expressway and Capitol Avenue, at Verryessa Road, at 28th Street between East Julian and East Santa Clara streets, at East Santa Clara Street between Fourth and Seventh streets, at West Santa Clara Street between First Street and Almaden Avenue, south of and parallel to West Santa Clara Street between Autumn and White streets, at Benton Street and Broad Road between El Camino Real and Coleman Avenue. The station at Calaveras Boulevard would be deferred until a future date. Service for the BAR extension could begin in 2013 if funding becomes available. In addition to the proposed BART Alternative, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, a New Starts Baseline Alternative, and two Minimum Operating Segment scenarios under the BART Alternative. Cost of the BART extension alternative is estimated at $4.1 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The BART system extension would improve public transit service in the corridor, increasing transit ridership and thereby reducing congestion on highways and local roads. Severe congestion on Interstate 880 (I-880) and I-680 between Alameda County and Santa Clara County would be enhanced. Access would improve throughout the San Francisco Bay region, including southern Alameda County, central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley, Central Valley, and Silicon Valley. Regional connectivity would be enhanced through expanded, interconnected raid transit services between the BART system in Fremont and the light rail transit and Caltrain in Silicon Valley. Modal options in the corridor would be expanded significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the extension would result in the displacement of 46 to 101 businesses, one to five residences, 400 flea market stalls, 1,025 storage tenants, two ad signs, and one utility facility. The project would encroach somewhat into the 100-year floodplain and affect less than two acres of wetlands, 15 acres of habitat for the federally protected Congdon's tarplant and 11.4 acres for the federally protected burrowing owl. Loss of 2.6 acres of Central Coast Cottonwood Sycamore could affect the federally protected several other special status species. Loss of grassland could impact loggerhead shrike. A small strip of dedicated parkland would be lost. Eight historic and prehistoric sites would lie within the impact area. The system would traverse and area affected by seismic activity. Construction workers would encounter 21 hazardous materials sites. Train operation would result in noise and vibration levels in excess of federal standards at numerous sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040134, 1,417 pages, March 19, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Earthquakes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%3A+BART+EXTENSION+TO+MILPITAS%2C+SAN+JOSE+AND+SANTA+CLARA%2C+COUNTY+OF+SANTA+CLARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILICON+VALLEY+RAPID+TRANSIT+CORRIDOR%3A+BART+EXTENSION+TO+MILPITAS%2C+SAN+JOSE+AND+SANTA+CLARA%2C+COUNTY+OF+SANTA+CLARA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 19, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF THE PALM BEACH HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE AND THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DESIGNATION OF THE PALM BEACH HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE AND THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE, FLORIDA. AN - 36352463; 10686-040129_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs) for deposition of material dredged from Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor, Florida is proposed. The sites would be used to dispose of dredged material from federally maintained channels within the two harbors. The preferred ODMDSs for Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor are located 4.5 nautical miles and four nautical miles offshore, respectively. Each site is approximately one square nautical mile in extent and are primarily characterized by soft-bottom habitat. Each site is located on the upper continental slope on the western edge of the Florida Current. The depth of each site exceeds 492 feet. No natural reefs, no natural or cultural gestures of historical importance, and no areas of special scientific importance are located within or near the preferred sites. Each site meets all the evaluation criteria for use as an ODMDS. Disposal volumes of up to 50,000 cubic yards of suitable dredged material could be placed annually at each ODMDS. The site could also be used for disposal of other federal or private dredging material near the harbors, provided the dredged material met the criteria specified under the appropriate federal legislation. Additional testing of dredged material and documentation would also be required for the transportation of dredged material. In addition to the preferred alternative sites, this draft EIS addresses three other offshore sites for each Palm Beach harbor, two other offshore sites for Port Everglades Harbor, a non-ocean disposal of the subject dredged material via beach nourishment and other means, and a No Action Alternative POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the sites would provide a safe, environmentally acceptable, and economically feasible means of disposing of material dredged to maintain the two harbors, ensuring the continued usability of navigational facilities at the ports. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal activities would destroy benthos and nekton and release sediment into the water column, degrading water quality temporarily. Dumping would occur in areas frequented by federally protected species of marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and sea grasses. Other migratory fish species could also be affected somewhat, but affects to fish and other wildlife would be transitory and generally insignificant. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040129, 721 pages, March 18, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Agency number: EPA 904/9-04-002 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Site Planning KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/36352463?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+THE+PALM+BEACH+HARBOR+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+AND+THE+PORT+EVERGLADES+HARBOR+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+THE+PALM+BEACH+HARBOR+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+AND+THE+PORT+EVERGLADES+HARBOR+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF THE PALM BEACH HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE AND THE PORT EVERGLADES HARBOR OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE, FLORIDA. AN - 16354934; 10686 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDSs) for deposition of material dredged from Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor, Florida is proposed. The sites would be used to dispose of dredged material from federally maintained channels within the two harbors. The preferred ODMDSs for Palm Beach Harbor and Port Everglades Harbor are located 4.5 nautical miles and four nautical miles offshore, respectively. Each site is approximately one square nautical mile in extent and are primarily characterized by soft-bottom habitat. Each site is located on the upper continental slope on the western edge of the Florida Current. The depth of each site exceeds 492 feet. No natural reefs, no natural or cultural gestures of historical importance, and no areas of special scientific importance are located within or near the preferred sites. Each site meets all the evaluation criteria for use as an ODMDS. Disposal volumes of up to 50,000 cubic yards of suitable dredged material could be placed annually at each ODMDS. The site could also be used for disposal of other federal or private dredging material near the harbors, provided the dredged material met the criteria specified under the appropriate federal legislation. Additional testing of dredged material and documentation would also be required for the transportation of dredged material. In addition to the preferred alternative sites, this draft EIS addresses three other offshore sites for each Palm Beach harbor, two other offshore sites for Port Everglades Harbor, a non-ocean disposal of the subject dredged material via beach nourishment and other means, and a No Action Alternative POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the sites would provide a safe, environmentally acceptable, and economically feasible means of disposing of material dredged to maintain the two harbors, ensuring the continued usability of navigational facilities at the ports. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal activities would destroy benthos and nekton and release sediment into the water column, degrading water quality temporarily. Dumping would occur in areas frequented by federally protected species of marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, and sea grasses. Other migratory fish species could also be affected somewhat, but affects to fish and other wildlife would be transitory and generally insignificant. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 040129, 721 pages, March 18, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Wastes KW - Agency number: EPA 904/9-04-002 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Site Planning KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/16354934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+THE+PALM+BEACH+HARBOR+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+AND+THE+PORT+EVERGLADES+HARBOR+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+THE+PALM+BEACH+HARBOR+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+AND+THE+PORT+EVERGLADES+HARBOR+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 18, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1991). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1991). AN - 36362085; 10684-040127_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control master plan for the Las Vegas area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The project area encompasses 1,056 square miles of southeastern Nevada, including portions of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Henderson, and unincorporated portions of Clark County. The majority of Clark County urban development lies within the Las Vegas Valley, a flood-prone area that has suffered loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage due to flooding since the turn of the 20th Century. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. The proposed action would provide for a series of detention basins located around the perimeter of currently urbanized areas. These basins, and associated dikes, would be designed to collect flood flows and release the flows at metered rates that could be accommodated by downstream conveyance facilities. The plan would involve the continued development of detention basins to reduce peak flows to levels that can be handled by the existing downstream conveyance system with little or no major capacity improvements. These improvements are assessed with respect to the environmental consequences at the programmatic level in this supplemental EIS. Specific project assessments would be implemented on a case-by-case basis using tools developed in this and other documents. In addition to the proposed plan, this supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed updated flood control master plan would help to alleviate flood-related problems, preventing damage to property and decreasing threats to human health and safety. Decreases in perennial low flows in unlined channels due to shallow groundwater seeps would be mitigated due to the lining of channels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities would encounter difficulties associated with unstable soils and subsidence in the area. These activities would result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The project facilities would lie within an area subject to seismic activity and characterized by unstable slopes. Fossiliferous alluvial units under the valley floor could be disturbed. Flow depths and velocities in downstream reaches could reach dangerous velocities. Lining of channels would reduce groundwater recharge. The development of basins and related facilities would displace desert vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased development in the area due to the reduction of the threat of flood would displace yet more wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0471D, Volume 14, Number 6 and 91-0123F, Volume 15, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040127, 417 pages and maps, March 17, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 04-15 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Desert Land KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Erosion KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Safety KW - Sediment KW - Subsidence KW - Streams KW - Water Storage KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36362085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1991%29.&rft.title=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1991%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLOOD CONTROL MASTER PLAN, CLARK COUNTY REGIONAL FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF APRIL 1991). AN - 16357142; 10684 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood control master plan for the Las Vegas area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The project area encompasses 1,056 square miles of southeastern Nevada, including portions of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Boulder City, Henderson, and unincorporated portions of Clark County. The majority of Clark County urban development lies within the Las Vegas Valley, a flood-prone area that has suffered loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage due to flooding since the turn of the 20th Century. The Las Vegas metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. The proposed action would provide for a series of detention basins located around the perimeter of currently urbanized areas. These basins, and associated dikes, would be designed to collect flood flows and release the flows at metered rates that could be accommodated by downstream conveyance facilities. The plan would involve the continued development of detention basins to reduce peak flows to levels that can be handled by the existing downstream conveyance system with little or no major capacity improvements. These improvements are assessed with respect to the environmental consequences at the programmatic level in this supplemental EIS. Specific project assessments would be implemented on a case-by-case basis using tools developed in this and other documents. In addition to the proposed plan, this supplemental draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed updated flood control master plan would help to alleviate flood-related problems, preventing damage to property and decreasing threats to human health and safety. Decreases in perennial low flows in unlined channels due to shallow groundwater seeps would be mitigated due to the lining of channels. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation activities would encounter difficulties associated with unstable soils and subsidence in the area. These activities would result in erosion and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. The project facilities would lie within an area subject to seismic activity and characterized by unstable slopes. Fossiliferous alluvial units under the valley floor could be disturbed. Flow depths and velocities in downstream reaches could reach dangerous velocities. Lining of channels would reduce groundwater recharge. The development of basins and related facilities would displace desert vegetation and soils and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased development in the area due to the reduction of the threat of flood would displace yet more wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 90-0471D, Volume 14, Number 6 and 91-0123F, Volume 15, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040127, 417 pages and maps, March 17, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Agency number: DES 04-15 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Desert Land KW - Dikes KW - Earthquakes KW - Erosion KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Safety KW - Sediment KW - Subsidence KW - Streams KW - Water Storage KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1991%29.&rft.title=FLOOD+CONTROL+MASTER+PLAN%2C+CLARK+COUNTY+REGIONAL+FLOOD+CONTROL+DISTRICT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+APRIL+1991%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 17, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND ARMORED CAVALRY REGIMENT TRANSFORMATION AND INSTALLATION MISSION SUPPORT, JOINT READINESS TRAINING CENTER AND FORT POLK, LOUISIANA AND LONG-TERM MILITARY TRAINING USE OF KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST LANDS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SECOND ARMORED CAVALRY REGIMENT TRANSFORMATION AND INSTALLATION MISSION SUPPORT, JOINT READINESS TRAINING CENTER AND FORT POLK, LOUISIANA AND LONG-TERM MILITARY TRAINING USE OF KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST LANDS. AN - 36353900; 10670-040116_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transformation installation support measures for the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment (2d ACR) at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JTRC) and Fort Polk in Louisiana is proposed. Fork Polk provides facilities for home-basing of the 2d ACR and several other combat, combat service, and combat service support units. The 604,000-acre Kisatchie National Forest, which consists of several large tracts located throughout northwestern and west-central Louisiana, provides terrain for military exercises for troops based at the fort. The U.S. Army and the U.S. Forest Service are proposing general actions affecting the JRTC and Fork Polk, surrounding Forest Service lands, and England Industrial Airpark at Alexandria International Airport. The Army proposes to: 1) transform the 2d ACR to make it part of the Army's Interim Force; 2) provide installation mission support to home-based and rotational units to meet their training needs for current and future missions by modernizing and improving maneuver areas and ranges, constructing numerous facilities, and performing other actions at the JRTC and Fort Polk, portions of Forest Service lands, and England Industrial Airpark; and 3) continue its long-term collaborative use and joint stewardship of portions of the national forest and to renew its agreement with the Forest Service for military training use of those lands. The Forest Service, for its part, proposed to thin approximately 21,540 acres of upland pine stands designated for military training use by the Army and to classify as "deleted", and thereby removed from further management and monitoring, habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker clusters that have been inactive for the past five years. In addition to the proposed actions, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative and six alternatives associated with the three principle elements of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would allow the JRTC and Fork Polk to assist in bringing the Army's Interim Force to operational capability (proposed to occur by May 2006); provide for realistic, advanced field training, modernized weapons training, and performance evaluation opportunities for Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and other Army brigades; and to provide sustainable training lands and support facilities for forces training at the JRTC and Fort Polk. The increased military presence in the area would increase the housing base and otherwise enhance local socioeconomic indicators. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities and increased training intensity would result in destruction of vegetation, disturbance and compaction of soils, displacement of wetland, temporary or permanent loss of the associated wildlife habitat, and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Construction and training activities would also impact cultural resource sites. Habitat for the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker and Louisiana pine snake, as well as for other species of concern, would be affected. Certain stream reaches would continue to fail to meet water quality requirements for their designated uses. Limitation of access to national forest lands during training exercises would impede recreational use of the area, and military use of the area would constitute a threat to public safety. Storage and use of hazardous materials, including ordnance, within the area would also pose a safety hazard. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended. (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0050D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040116, Final EIS--1,244 pages and maps, Appendices--488 pages, CD-ROM, March 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Timber Management KW - Water Quality KW - Fort Polk, Louisiana KW - Kisatchie National Forest KW - Louisiana KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353900?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+ARMORED+CAVALRY+REGIMENT+TRANSFORMATION+AND+INSTALLATION+MISSION+SUPPORT%2C+JOINT+READINESS+TRAINING+CENTER+AND+FORT+POLK%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+LONG-TERM+MILITARY+TRAINING+USE+OF+KISATCHIE+NATIONAL+FOREST+LANDS.&rft.title=SECOND+ARMORED+CAVALRY+REGIMENT+TRANSFORMATION+AND+INSTALLATION+MISSION+SUPPORT%2C+JOINT+READINESS+TRAINING+CENTER+AND+FORT+POLK%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+LONG-TERM+MILITARY+TRAINING+USE+OF+KISATCHIE+NATIONAL+FOREST+LANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND ARMORED CAVALRY REGIMENT TRANSFORMATION AND INSTALLATION MISSION SUPPORT, JOINT READINESS TRAINING CENTER AND FORT POLK, LOUISIANA AND LONG-TERM MILITARY TRAINING USE OF KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST LANDS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SECOND ARMORED CAVALRY REGIMENT TRANSFORMATION AND INSTALLATION MISSION SUPPORT, JOINT READINESS TRAINING CENTER AND FORT POLK, LOUISIANA AND LONG-TERM MILITARY TRAINING USE OF KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST LANDS. AN - 36352696; 10670-040116_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transformation installation support measures for the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment (2d ACR) at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JTRC) and Fort Polk in Louisiana is proposed. Fork Polk provides facilities for home-basing of the 2d ACR and several other combat, combat service, and combat service support units. The 604,000-acre Kisatchie National Forest, which consists of several large tracts located throughout northwestern and west-central Louisiana, provides terrain for military exercises for troops based at the fort. The U.S. Army and the U.S. Forest Service are proposing general actions affecting the JRTC and Fork Polk, surrounding Forest Service lands, and England Industrial Airpark at Alexandria International Airport. The Army proposes to: 1) transform the 2d ACR to make it part of the Army's Interim Force; 2) provide installation mission support to home-based and rotational units to meet their training needs for current and future missions by modernizing and improving maneuver areas and ranges, constructing numerous facilities, and performing other actions at the JRTC and Fort Polk, portions of Forest Service lands, and England Industrial Airpark; and 3) continue its long-term collaborative use and joint stewardship of portions of the national forest and to renew its agreement with the Forest Service for military training use of those lands. The Forest Service, for its part, proposed to thin approximately 21,540 acres of upland pine stands designated for military training use by the Army and to classify as "deleted", and thereby removed from further management and monitoring, habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker clusters that have been inactive for the past five years. In addition to the proposed actions, this final EIS addresses a No Action Alternative and six alternatives associated with the three principle elements of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would allow the JRTC and Fork Polk to assist in bringing the Army's Interim Force to operational capability (proposed to occur by May 2006); provide for realistic, advanced field training, modernized weapons training, and performance evaluation opportunities for Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and other Army brigades; and to provide sustainable training lands and support facilities for forces training at the JRTC and Fort Polk. The increased military presence in the area would increase the housing base and otherwise enhance local socioeconomic indicators. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities and increased training intensity would result in destruction of vegetation, disturbance and compaction of soils, displacement of wetland, temporary or permanent loss of the associated wildlife habitat, and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Construction and training activities would also impact cultural resource sites. Habitat for the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker and Louisiana pine snake, as well as for other species of concern, would be affected. Certain stream reaches would continue to fail to meet water quality requirements for their designated uses. Limitation of access to national forest lands during training exercises would impede recreational use of the area, and military use of the area would constitute a threat to public safety. Storage and use of hazardous materials, including ordnance, within the area would also pose a safety hazard. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended. (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0050D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040116, Final EIS--1,244 pages and maps, Appendices--488 pages, CD-ROM, March 10, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Defense Programs KW - Airports KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Timber Management KW - Water Quality KW - Fort Polk, Louisiana KW - Kisatchie National Forest KW - Louisiana KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+ARMORED+CAVALRY+REGIMENT+TRANSFORMATION+AND+INSTALLATION+MISSION+SUPPORT%2C+JOINT+READINESS+TRAINING+CENTER+AND+FORT+POLK%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+LONG-TERM+MILITARY+TRAINING+USE+OF+KISATCHIE+NATIONAL+FOREST+LANDS.&rft.title=SECOND+ARMORED+CAVALRY+REGIMENT+TRANSFORMATION+AND+INSTALLATION+MISSION+SUPPORT%2C+JOINT+READINESS+TRAINING+CENTER+AND+FORT+POLK%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+LONG-TERM+MILITARY+TRAINING+USE+OF+KISATCHIE+NATIONAL+FOREST+LANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 10, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUNWAY 17-35 EXTENSION PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - RUNWAY 17-35 EXTENSION PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36370932; 050283F-050098_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of Runway 17/35 and related actions at Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed. Passenger and aircraft activity data examined during the preparation of the airport master plan update determined that aircraft operations are currently delayed an average of 10 minutes per operation these delays are forecast to increase to 19 minutes by 2010. Delays at the airport have been worsened by faster than predicted changes in the fleet mix from turboprop to regional jet aircraft. At their present lengths of 5,459 and 5,000 feet, respectively, secondary Runways 17-35 and 8-26 cannot regularly accommodate many of the departures by regional jets and narrow body aircraft. As a result, these runways are severely underused, increasing delays by focusing operations on the two primary runways. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternative 1, the preferred alternative, would involve extension of Runway 17-35 by 640 feet to the north and by 400 feet to the south to a new length of 6,500 feet. Taxiways parallel to the runway would be extended and a new high-speed exit taxiway would be constructed near the north end of the runway. Navigational aids would be relocated as needed. Standard 1,000-foot runway safety areas would be constructed at the north and south ends of the runway. A portion of the existing airfield service road south of the runway would be relocated to be largely outside of the proposed runway safety area. Action Alternative 2 would extend Runway 17-35 by 1,140 feet to the north and by 400 feet to the south to a new length of 7,000 feet. Alternative would accommodate the obstruction to Runway 35 arrivals posed by certain large ships in the Delaware River Shipping Channel by displacing the Runway 35 landing threshold by 1,444 feet to the north. Alternative 2 would also provide for a 500-foot displacement of the threshold on the north (runway 17) end to prevent obstruction of flight paths by vehicles on Interstate 95 (I-95). Parallel taxiways would be extended, and a new high-speed exit taxiway would be constructed near the north end of the runway. Costs of action alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $36.0 million and $56.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The runway extension and related actions would reduce current and projected airfield delays at the airport. Reduced congestion at the airport would also increase aircraft operations safety and abate noise emissions somewhat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under either action alternative, a portion of the Economy Parking Lot north of the runway would be displaced; lost parking spaces would be replaced east and west of the runway. A portion of State Route (SR) 291 between I-95 Ramp F and Island Avenue would be closed and the Exxon gas station at the intersection of Island Avenue and SR 291 would be displaced to meet runway operation safety rules. A portion of Church Creek would be converted from an open channel to a culvert, and adjustments to navigational aids and lighting systems would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050098, Volume 1--543 pages, March 4, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Navigation KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Pennsylvania KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 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/36370932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUNWAY+17-35+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=RUNWAY+17-35+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUNWAY 17-35 EXTENSION PROJECT, PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 16356264; 11436 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of Runway 17/35 and related actions at Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed. Passenger and aircraft activity data examined during the preparation of the airport master plan update determined that aircraft operations are currently delayed an average of 10 minutes per operation these delays are forecast to increase to 19 minutes by 2010. Delays at the airport have been worsened by faster than predicted changes in the fleet mix from turboprop to regional jet aircraft. At their present lengths of 5,459 and 5,000 feet, respectively, secondary Runways 17-35 and 8-26 cannot regularly accommodate many of the departures by regional jets and narrow body aircraft. As a result, these runways are severely underused, increasing delays by focusing operations on the two primary runways. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action Alternative 1, the preferred alternative, would involve extension of Runway 17-35 by 640 feet to the north and by 400 feet to the south to a new length of 6,500 feet. Taxiways parallel to the runway would be extended and a new high-speed exit taxiway would be constructed near the north end of the runway. Navigational aids would be relocated as needed. Standard 1,000-foot runway safety areas would be constructed at the north and south ends of the runway. A portion of the existing airfield service road south of the runway would be relocated to be largely outside of the proposed runway safety area. Action Alternative 2 would extend Runway 17-35 by 1,140 feet to the north and by 400 feet to the south to a new length of 7,000 feet. Alternative would accommodate the obstruction to Runway 35 arrivals posed by certain large ships in the Delaware River Shipping Channel by displacing the Runway 35 landing threshold by 1,444 feet to the north. Alternative 2 would also provide for a 500-foot displacement of the threshold on the north (runway 17) end to prevent obstruction of flight paths by vehicles on Interstate 95 (I-95). Parallel taxiways would be extended, and a new high-speed exit taxiway would be constructed near the north end of the runway. Costs of action alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $36.0 million and $56.0 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The runway extension and related actions would reduce current and projected airfield delays at the airport. Reduced congestion at the airport would also increase aircraft operations safety and abate noise emissions somewhat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under either action alternative, a portion of the Economy Parking Lot north of the runway would be displaced; lost parking spaces would be replaced east and west of the runway. A portion of State Route (SR) 291 between I-95 Ramp F and Island Avenue would be closed and the Exxon gas station at the intersection of Island Avenue and SR 291 would be displaced to meet runway operation safety rules. A portion of Church Creek would be converted from an open channel to a culvert, and adjustments to navigational aids and lighting systems would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 99-339), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 050098, Volume 1--543 pages, March 4, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Navigation KW - Parking KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Pennsylvania KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, 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/16356264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-03-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUNWAY+17-35+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=RUNWAY+17-35+EXTENSION+PROJECT%2C+PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 4, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of flood timing and spatial distribution on nitrate export from the Upper Mississippi Basin AN - 51800945; 2004-068693 AB - We examined the transport of nitrate + nitrite nitrogen (nitrate) in the Mississippi River during the period 1992-2001 with emphasis on two major floods (1993 and 2001) in the upper Mississippi River basin (above the Missouri River confluence with the Mississippi River). We found significant influences of flood frequency (antecedent conditions), seasonal timing, and geographic distribution of flooding on nitrate transport. The results show that major floods dominate the movement of nitrate in this system and that the spatial and temporal distribution of flooding has substantial influence on nitrate transport. Of particular importance to the concentration of nitrate in flood waters is the level of discharge from the basin during the preceding 12 months and the character of flood waters delivered from the upper Mississippi Basin to the Gulf of Mexico can be strongly influenced by dilutional flows from other basins in the Mississippi drainage (e.g., the Ohio River). The 1993 flood was record-setting in terms of nitrate and water flux, was preceded by a dry year, and was followed by the largest areal extent of hypoxia ever recorded in the northern Gulf of Mexico to that time. The 2001 flood had a much smaller total flux of water and nitrate but also dry antecedent conditions and resulted in higher concentration of nitrate and earlier delivery to the Gulf (May vs. July) than in 1993. The 2001 flood was followed by a hypoxic zone that exceeded in areal extent the one observed in 1993. Our results show that the size of the summer hypoxic zone, which varies in relation to discharge from the upper Mississippi River, appears particularly sensitive to May discharge from the upper Mississippi and appeared to responded more strongly to the early-season (April-May) flood in 2001. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Soballe, David M AU - Wasley, Dennis M AU - Coupe, Richard H AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 8 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 3 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Upper Mississippi Valley KW - geologic hazards KW - Mississippi Valley KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - effects KW - spatial distribution KW - floods KW - Mississippi River KW - nitrate ion KW - discharge KW - geochemistry KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51800945?accountid=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=Effects+of+flood+timing+and+spatial+distribution+on+nitrate+export+from+the+Upper+Mississippi+Basin&rft.au=Soballe%2C+David+M%3BWasley%2C+Dennis+M%3BCoupe%2C+Richard+H%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Soballe&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=8&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00167592&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Geological Society of America, North-Central Section, 38th 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - discharge; effects; floods; geochemistry; geologic hazards; Mississippi River; Mississippi Valley; nitrate ion; pollutants; pollution; spatial distribution; United States; Upper Mississippi Valley ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Influence of selected geologists in the Civil War AN - 51703118; 2005-050568 AB - Federal and Confederate forces in the American Civil War had access to maps and reports of the state and federal surveys. The publications included geologic as well as topographic maps. In the late 1850's, the knowledge of science carried to the field of battle by the university students included geology. The applicability of student geologic/topographic knowledge was undoubtedly limited by rank. In 1860 students of the University of Mississippi formed the 11th Mississippi Infantry, also known as the "University Grays". The unit took a lead in Picketts Charge (Battle of Gettysburg) and all of the members were casualties, including many fatally wounded. A four-member faculty at the university taught the Grays. At the time of the Civil War, the state geological survey office in Mississippi was at the university and the Chief Geologist of the survey was a university faculty member. At the time of the university closing due to the war, Chief Geologist Dr. Eugene W. Hilgard was that faculty member. Besides teaching, one of Dr. Hilgard's accomplishments was preventing the destruction of the university when Federal troops, arrived with orders to burn the campus. Also during the war Dr. Hilgard designed a system of floodlights to be used in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The lights were to illuminate Federal Navy vessels attempting to run the gun batteries of Vicksburg. The career of Dr. Hilgard evolved into the field of soil science. His research and teaching continued at the University of California, Berkeley, and he is regarded today at the Father of Soil Science. He recognized the significance of soil profiles and defined the horizon classification system (A, B, and C) used today. A noted Federal Army geologist participating in the Vicksburg Campaign was John Wesley Powell. With the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, Powell enlisted in the 20th Illinois volunteers. As the Captain of battery F (2nd Illinois artillery) he lost his right arm in the battle of Shiloh. He returned to service and fought battles of Champion Hill, Black River Bridge, and the Siege of Vicksburg. He excavated fossils from the loess walls of the Federal trenches he occupied during the siege of Vicksburg. His postwar mark on history is for leading the first expedition down the Colorado River (1869) of the Grand Canyon. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Larson, Robert J AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Myers, William M AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 77 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Civil War KW - human activity KW - University of Mississippi KW - Mississippi KW - Hilgard, Eugene W. KW - wars KW - biography KW - history KW - military geology KW - archaeological sites KW - railroads KW - reconstruction KW - land use KW - Powell, John Wesley KW - 15:Miscellaneous UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51703118?accountid=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+selected+geologists+in+the+Civil+War&rft.au=Larson%2C+Robert+J%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BMyers%2C+William+M%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - archaeological sites; biography; Civil War; Hilgard, Eugene W.; history; human activity; land use; military geology; Mississippi; Powell, John Wesley; railroads; reconstruction; United States; University of Mississippi; wars ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Mississippi Loess and the siege of Vicksburg AN - 51702004; 2005-050564 AB - Vicksburg, MS, is located on Pleistocene loess, an eolian silt about 100 feet thick. The loess has eroded into deep, steep sloped ravines. As a result, the City sits on prominent hills and intervening deep valleys. The properties of the loess greatly influenced the conduct of MG U. S. Grant's 1863 siege. Union forces invested Vicksburg on 19 May 1863, and saw the dendritic loessal drainage pattern formed a concentric ridge system around the city. Using this topography to advantage, the Confederates had fortified a prominent ridge that circled the City from the Mississippi River north of town to the River on the south. Federal reconnaissance showed a smaller, less continuous ridge outside the Confederate ridge, which they fortified. Thus, the loessal topography brought the armies into proximity, but did not permit close combat since the intervening terrain was impassable. Only six avenues of approach existed between the two ridges, all drainage divides with roads located atop them. The Confederates had erected their strongest fortifications at these loessal avenues where the bloodiest fighting of the siege took place. Undisturbed loess has a weakly cemented structure of calcium carbonate and some particles are clay-coated, giving it cohesion. The material is easy to dig, and vertical cuts stand almost indefinitely. This property facilitated the excavation of thirteen siege approaches by the Union toward the Confederate lines, the several Confederate countermines, miles of infantry trenches, and the construction of artificial caves for the shelter of soldiers and the civilians trapped in the city. Little groundwater exists in the impermeable loess and Vicksburg had long relied on cisterns for water. Union soldiers noted that streams all flowed through the enemy lines and quickly polluted them with dead animals, forcing southern troops to rely on the cisterns, since parties obtaining water at the River were subject to Union fire. The cisterns soon went dry, causing a water shortage among the Confederates. Loessal Geology, exposure, lack of food and water all contributed to the surrender of the City of Vicksburg on 4 July 1863. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Larson, Robert J AU - Myers, William M AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 77 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Missouri River KW - Civil War KW - archaeology KW - Mississippi Loess KW - clastic sediments KW - human activity KW - Mississippi KW - decision-making KW - wars KW - history KW - military geology KW - archaeological sites KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - transport KW - underground installations KW - sediments KW - loess KW - reconstruction KW - land use KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51702004?accountid=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=Mississippi+Loess+and+the+siege+of+Vicksburg&rft.au=Larson%2C+Robert+J%3BMyers%2C+William+M%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Larson&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - archaeological sites; archaeology; Civil War; clastic sediments; decision-making; history; human activity; land use; loess; military geology; Mississippi; Mississippi Loess; Missouri River; reconstruction; sediments; transport; underground installations; United States; Vicksburg Mississippi; wars ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrogeologic investigation of leakage through sinkholes in the bed of Lake Seminole into and through the Floridan Aquifer to artesian springs located downstream from Jim Woodruff Dam AN - 51701369; 2005-049017 AB - Jim Woodruff Dam was constructed across the Apalachicola River on the Florida-Alabama border to create Lake Seminole. Polk Lake Spring is located about 244 meters (800 feet) downstream, and a large boil, estimated to be 424,753 liters per second (15,000 cfs), created by water rising from a hole in the river bed, is located in the Apalachicola River about 549 meters (1,800 feet) downstream. This research was initiated by the Mobile District US Army Corps of Engineers to determine if water from the spring and/or boil is leakage from the reservoir, groundwater, or both. EMC, Inc. performed a multi-beam hydrographic survey of the lake bottom topography, identifying five potential leakage sites. The most distant hole identified by the lake bed survey was approximately 434 meters (1,425 feet) upstream from the dam. A dye tracer investigation was conducted to determine if any of these sites was contributing to the discharge at the spring and/or boil located downstream from the dam. After a karst hydrogeologic inventory was conducted, activated charcoal dye receptors were placed at twelve locations, and ISCO automatic water samplers at three locations. Three fluorescent dyes were used for the tracer tests. The investigation indicates that lake water sinking into holes in the lake bed is flowing through old solution conduits in the limestone bedrock that existed previous to dam construction. All the leakage confirmed by dye tracing is resurging at the boil located in the river downstream from the dam. However, most of the leakage first resurges at Polk Lake Spring and then sinks at Polk Lake Sink to finally resurge at the boil. Jim Woodruff Dam was built upon the lower Tampa Limestone, a semi-confining unit for the Upper Floridan Aquifer. The geologic dip in the vicinity is downstream perpendicular to the dam. The Suwannee Limestone, the uppermost geologic unit of the Upper Floridan Aquifer, outcrops under Lake Seminole but dips below the Tampa semi-confining unit in the vicinity of the dam. Additional leakage may be sinking through reactivated sinkholes in the lake where the Tampa semi-confining layer is thin. This leakage may then flow through the Suwannee Limestone (Upper Floridan Aquifer) down dip to resurge at the boil located about 549 meters (1,800 feet) downstream from the dam, where the Tampa is thin due to the downcutting of the Apalachicola River Valley. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Crawford, Nicholas C AU - Poiroux, Duane B AU - Sanders, James H AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 61 EP - 62 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - limestone KW - water quality KW - Jim Woodruff Dam KW - karst hydrology KW - sinks KW - rivers and streams KW - dye tracers KW - Tampa Limestone KW - Florida KW - ground water KW - Cenozoic KW - artesian waters KW - sedimentary rocks KW - dams KW - upper Oligocene KW - springs KW - Polk Lake Spring KW - mobility KW - hydrology KW - monitoring KW - pollution KW - Paleogene KW - Apalachicola River KW - Tertiary KW - recharge KW - sinkholes KW - Floridan Aquifer KW - carbonate rocks KW - Suwannee Limestone KW - solution features KW - Seminole Lake KW - Oligocene KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51701369?accountid=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=Hydrogeologic+investigation+of+leakage+through+sinkholes+in+the+bed+of+Lake+Seminole+into+and+through+the+Floridan+Aquifer+to+artesian+springs+located+downstream+from+Jim+Woodruff+Dam&rft.au=Crawford%2C+Nicholas+C%3BPoiroux%2C+Duane+B%3BSanders%2C+James+H%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Crawford&rft.aufirst=Nicholas&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=61&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Apalachicola River; artesian waters; carbonate rocks; Cenozoic; dams; dye tracers; Florida; Floridan Aquifer; ground water; hydrology; Jim Woodruff Dam; karst hydrology; limestone; mobility; monitoring; Oligocene; Paleogene; Polk Lake Spring; pollution; recharge; rivers and streams; sedimentary rocks; Seminole Lake; sinkholes; sinks; solution features; springs; Suwannee Limestone; Tampa Limestone; Tertiary; United States; upper Oligocene; water quality ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Mississippi River alluvial geology and the Vicksburg campaign AN - 51701164; 2005-050563 AB - The final phase of MG U. S. Grant's Vicksburg Campaign began 31 Mar 1863 as his XIII Corps left Millikin's Bend, LA, for New Carthage, LA. At New Carthage, Grant hoped to cross the River onto Mississippi high ground and operate against Vicksburg. Some accounts intimate Grant's force moved directly south. Actually, the ancestral meander and natural levee geology of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain dictated a circuitous route and prevented interdiction by Confederates further west. Since the last glaciation, the River has meandered across its flood plain, abandoning numerous channels. Many channels formed Bayous, the principal drainages of the area. When these channels were active, sedimentation during floods built natural levees up to ten feet above the surrounding area. In the 19th century, the only roads were along the natural levees since they were last to be flooded. Beyond the natural levees lay backswamp deposits-low areas that take months to drain after floods. Federal forces took the Walnut Bayou natural levee road, and after a skirmish at Richmond, LA, proceeded south on the natural levee road west of Roundaway Bayou. By 3 Apr, they were near New Carthage, but finding it flooded, moved to Ione's Plantation, where about 20 acres of dry ground was located. This was fine for most of the XIII Corps, but not enough for most of the Army, soon to follow. Here, pursuit of Confederate snipers revealed that the backswamp to the west was completely flooded, protecting the Federal troops from attack. Reconnaissance revealed that a road on the west side of Bayou Vidal extended almost to a road on the west side of Lake St. Joseph. Both roads were on natural levees and eventually led to an open, flat, dry area near Hard Times Landing, LA, on the River. On 16 Apr, several Union ships ran past the Vicksburg batteries and joined Grant's army. By 27 Apr 1863, two-thirds of Grant's army was near Hard Times. The Geology of the Alluvial Plain had forced, but permitted, the Army to march almost 60 miles to advance 25 miles downriver. Grant now had soldiers south of Vicksburg and boats to transport them across the Mississippi. Grant had only to strike! JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Myers, William M AU - Larson, Robert J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 77 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Walnut Bayou KW - Civil War KW - archaeology KW - human activity KW - Mississippi KW - decision-making KW - alluvial plains KW - wars KW - history KW - military geology KW - archaeological sites KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - transport KW - fluvial features KW - reconstruction KW - Mississippi River KW - land use KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51701164?accountid=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=Mississippi+River+alluvial+geology+and+the+Vicksburg+campaign&rft.au=Harrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BMyers%2C+William+M%3BLarson%2C+Robert+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Harrelson&rft.aufirst=Danny&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - alluvial plains; archaeological sites; archaeology; Civil War; decision-making; fluvial features; history; human activity; land use; military geology; Mississippi; Mississippi River; reconstruction; transport; United States; Vicksburg Mississippi; Walnut Bayou; wars ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geology of the Red River campaign of the American Civil War AN - 51699542; 2005-050567 AB - The Red River Campaign (10 March to 22 May 1864) was the Union's largest combined army and navy campaign west of the Mississippi River. The primary objectives of the campaign were the capture of Shreveport, LA, seize major stockpiles of cotton in the area, and planting the Union flag in Texas. However, like many other Civil War campaigns, geology played a pivotal role in deciding the outcome. Union army and naval commanders overlooked several unique geologic and hydrologic factors influencing the Red River system. These unique properties included the great Red River Raft (a massive log jam that impeded navigation between Alexandria and Shreveport, LA), a series of rapids at Alexandria, LA, and the flashy nature and high sediment load of the river. The great Red River Raft in place for at least a millennium altered the flow regime of the River from a single channel to a series of anastomosing channels that created "strategic shooting lanes" for the Confederate defenders. The initial largely unsuccessful attempts at removing the raft were between 1833-1838, so knowledge of the raft existed prior to the war. After removal efforts ended in 1838, the raft reformed quickly and was in place again by the time the Red River Campaign began. At the tactical level, the raft severely restricted the ability of the Union's naval forces to maneuver and advance, thereby relegating the land forces to a largely defensive role. The rapids at Alexandria, LA, served as another navigational restriction that almost cost the Union navy it's entire Red River fleet after it was trapped above the them during a sudden drop in the river level. The fleet was saved by one of the most imaginative engineering feats of military history; a "wing dam" proposed by Captain Joseph Bailey. These two dams constructed at the lower and upper rapids, raised the level of the Red River approximately 2.1 meters (seven feet) and provided sufficient draft that allowed most of the Union fleet to escape. Unable to achieve any of its objectives, the Campaign was considered a failure by the Lincoln administration and his military commanders. General William T. Sherman best described the failure of the Red River Campaign as "one damn blunder from beginning to end". JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Larson, Robert J AU - Myers, William M AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 77 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Civil War KW - archaeology KW - human activity KW - Mississippi KW - decision-making KW - wars KW - history KW - sedimentary rocks KW - military geology KW - archaeological sites KW - transport KW - railroads KW - energy sources KW - coal KW - reconstruction KW - Mississippi River KW - Louisiana KW - military facilities KW - Red River KW - land use KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51699542?accountid=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+the+Red+River+campaign+of+the+American+Civil+War&rft.au=Harrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BLarson%2C+Robert+J%3BMyers%2C+William+M%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Harrelson&rft.aufirst=Danny&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=77&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - archaeological sites; archaeology; Civil War; coal; decision-making; energy sources; history; human activity; land use; Louisiana; military facilities; military geology; Mississippi; Mississippi River; railroads; reconstruction; Red River; sedimentary rocks; transport; United States; wars ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Loess and the Vicksburg campaign of maneuver AN - 51699494; 2005-050562 AB - Landing at Bruinsburg, MS, on 30 Apr 1863, U.S. Grant's army began traversing an area covered with up to 100 feet of Pleistocene loess. The loess, an eolian silt deposit, parallels the east bank of the Mississippi River where it is thickest, thinning rapidly eastward. The loess surface once undulated gently, but over geologic time eroded into deep, steep-sloped ravines. In the 19th century, roads in the loess followed the ridges, as other terrain was impassable. The Union army marched until midnight when it encountered fire from Confederate pickets. After a short firefight, both forces waited for daylight. At dawn, the Federals deployed 23,500 men against 7,500 Confederates from Grand Gulf, MS. The Confederates fought stubbornly, using the complicated loess terrain. They fell back slowly and withdrew through Port Gibson about 6:00 PM. Grant's forces pursued, hoping to seize the bridge over Big Black River. They found it burning, but put out the blaze and repaired the bridge. With the Big Black Bridge in Federal hands, the way to Vicksburg was open! Or was it? Grant sent patrols both north across the river and northeast along the south side of the river. The patrol sent north rode to within less than 10 miles from Vicksburg, and reported the terrain as the same steep sided ridges and hollows as around Port Gibson. The other patrol found open, rolling country where artillery could be effective. Also, they reported that the Big Black was only crossable in a few locations between Port Gibson and the Southern Railroad of Mississippi, miles to the northeast. Grant knew his options: A thrust north to Vicksburg could result in another Battle of Port Gibson at every loessal ridge top. A swing into the open country east of the Big Black River might allow his Army to cut the Southern Railroad of Mississippi that was hauling vital supplies into Vicksburg. Meanwhile, his Army would be protected by the unfordable Big Black River on its left flank. Grant knew the Confederates would come out to fight for the railroad, but the battle would likely be on open ground. One of MG Grant's most momentous military decisions had just been decided by the Geology of Mississippi Loess. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Myers, William M AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Larson, Robert J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 76 EP - 77 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Civil War KW - archaeology KW - clastic sediments KW - human activity KW - Mississippi KW - Big Black River KW - decision-making KW - wars KW - history KW - military geology KW - archaeological sites KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - transport KW - railroads KW - sediments KW - loess KW - ecology KW - reconstruction KW - military facilities KW - construction KW - land use KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51699494?accountid=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=Loess+and+the+Vicksburg+campaign+of+maneuver&rft.au=Myers%2C+William+M%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BLarson%2C+Robert+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Myers&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=76&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - archaeological sites; archaeology; Big Black River; Civil War; clastic sediments; construction; decision-making; ecology; history; human activity; land use; loess; military facilities; military geology; Mississippi; railroads; reconstruction; sediments; transport; United States; Vicksburg Mississippi; wars ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Extended bioremediation of PAH/PCP contaminated soils from the POPILE wood treatment facility AN - 51662111; 2005-071734 JF - Chemosphere (Oxford) AU - Hansen, Lance D AU - Nestler, Cathy AU - Ringelberg, David B AU - Bajpai, Rakesh A2 - Denison, M. S. A2 - Fiedler, H. Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 1481 EP - 1493 PB - Elsevier VL - 54 IS - 10 SN - 0045-6535, 0045-6535 KW - United States KW - wood KW - biomass KW - moisture KW - creosote KW - chlorophenols KW - chemical waste KW - environmental analysis KW - El Dorado Arkansas KW - remediation KW - agrochemicals KW - Superfund sites KW - soils KW - concentration KW - biodegradation KW - Union County Arkansas KW - POPILE site KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - pentachlorophenol KW - bioremediation KW - nutrients KW - organic compounds KW - hydrocarbons KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - leaching KW - preservation KW - land use KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - Arkansas KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51662111?accountid=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=Extended+bioremediation+of+PAH%2FPCP+contaminated+soils+from+the+POPILE+wood+treatment+facility&rft.au=Hansen%2C+Lance+D%3BNestler%2C+Cathy%3BRingelberg%2C+David+B%3BBajpai%2C+Rakesh&rft.aulast=Hansen&rft.aufirst=Lance&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1481&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chemosphere+%28Oxford%29&rft.issn=00456535&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.chemosphere.2003.09.046 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00456535 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 44 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - CMSHAF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - agrochemicals; Arkansas; aromatic hydrocarbons; biodegradation; biomass; bioremediation; chemical waste; chlorophenols; concentration; creosote; El Dorado Arkansas; environmental analysis; hydrocarbons; land use; leaching; moisture; nutrients; organic compounds; pentachlorophenol; pollutants; pollution; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; POPILE site; preservation; remediation; soils; Superfund sites; Union County Arkansas; United States; wood DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.09.046 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Three-dimensional topo/bathy modeling and short-term evolution of Isabel's inlet, North Carolina AN - 51653756; 2005-077154 AB - On September 18, 2003 Hurricane Isabel made landfall along the Outer Banks of North Carolina and breached the barrier island chain south of Cape Hatteras. The breach isolated the community of Hatteras Village by washing out a 500 m section of NC State Hwy 12. To rapidly assess breach geomorphology, document short-term morphological evolution, and to collect critical data in support of coastal modeling efforts, a series of high-density topographic and bathymetric surveys was performed. The unique survey strategy made use of real-time kinematic GPS and ultra shallow-water singlebeam and multibeam sonar technologies. Approximately 1.5 million data points were collected over two surveys. These high-resolution topographic and bathymetric data were seamlessly merged in the surfzone with customized spatial interpolation algorithms to create detailed 3D digital elevation models (DEM's). Through spatial surface analysis, cutting planes and 3D visualization the DEM's are providing a comprehensive insight into the coastal morphology and short-term evolution of what some have dubbed Isabel's Inlet. Surface analyses from the first survey revealed three separate openings to the ocean with a main northern channel that was approximately 100 m wide with depths averaging 4.5 to 6 m. A well-defined ebb-shoal complex also formed within a week of the breach, and extended up to 365 m offshore from the former location of NC 12 within three weeks. The main channel migrated 12 m toward the southwest during the course of a two-week period, eroding approximately 12,000 m (super 3) of land while maintaining the average channel depths. Data from the southern-most channel indicate an average scour of approximately 1.5 m around the central portion of the channel that contained dense Hwy 12 debris and exposed bridge pilings constructed to span a breach that occurred in 1933. Results from 3D DEM analysis indicate rapid morphology change with extensive datum-derived shoreline adjustment as the breach attempted to reach a state of equilibrium. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Freeman, Christopher W AU - Bernstein, David J AU - Wamsley, Ty AU - McCormick, John AU - Kraus, Nicholas C AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 107 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - high-resolution methods KW - barrier islands KW - shore features KW - Cape Hatteras KW - three-dimensional models KW - erosion KW - Dare County North Carolina KW - erosion features KW - digital terrain models KW - models KW - Hurricane Isabel KW - visualization KW - inlets KW - Outer Banks KW - North Carolina KW - coastal environment KW - storms KW - bathymetry KW - hurricanes KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51653756?accountid=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=Three-dimensional+topo%2Fbathy+modeling+and+short-term+evolution+of+Isabel%27s+inlet%2C+North+Carolina&rft.au=Freeman%2C+Christopher+W%3BBernstein%2C+David+J%3BWamsley%2C+Ty%3BMcCormick%2C+John%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Freeman&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=107&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - barrier islands; bathymetry; Cape Hatteras; coastal environment; Dare County North Carolina; digital terrain models; erosion; erosion features; high-resolution methods; Hurricane Isabel; hurricanes; inlets; models; North Carolina; Outer Banks; shore features; storms; three-dimensional models; United States; visualization ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Georadar for mine shaft analysis AN - 51653289; 2006-001891 AB - Georadar was used for rapid analysis of a 670 m deep vertical mine shaft. The shaft that was characterized is located in the abandoned 540 acre Norton limestone mine in Fairlawn, Ohio. Traditional hardware and data acquisition techniques were modified to accommodate the unique hazards and requirements associated with mine shaft environments. Mine analysis is commonly performed using drilling or other destructive methods that only sample a small portion of the shaft. Georadar proved to be a cost effective, non-destructive method to analyze large portions of the shaft. Blasting of the shaft created a rough interface later covered by a variable thickness concrete liner. The thickness of the concrete liner and rock interface were effectively measured and imaged. Reinforcing bar, fractures, and voids were also detected and confirmed using independent methods. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Radzevicius, Stanley J AU - Guy, Erich D AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 137 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - limestone KW - mining KW - mines KW - data acquisition KW - data processing KW - reinforced materials KW - radar methods KW - techniques KW - cost KW - concrete KW - rock mechanics KW - Norton Mine KW - sedimentary rocks KW - mining geology KW - Summit County Ohio KW - Fairlawn Ohio KW - carbonate rocks KW - construction materials KW - Ohio KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 26A:Economic geology, general, deposits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51653289?accountid=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=Georadar+for+mine+shaft+analysis&rft.au=Radzevicius%2C+Stanley+J%3BGuy%2C+Erich+D%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Radzevicius&rft.aufirst=Stanley&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=137&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - carbonate rocks; concrete; construction materials; cost; data acquisition; data processing; Fairlawn Ohio; limestone; mines; mining; mining geology; Norton Mine; Ohio; radar methods; reinforced materials; rock mechanics; sedimentary rocks; Summit County Ohio; techniques; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Near-surface geology and subsidence imaging using coincident 3D surface-penetrating radar, multi-component seismic reflection, and cross-hole radar tomography AN - 51653038; 2006-001890 AB - Multi-component seismic reflection, surface-penetrating radar and cross-hole radar data were acquired in an area where a highway had collapsed due to mine subsidence. These data were acquired to test the applicability of each method for near-surface geology and subsidence problems, and to identify locations in the study area having a high risk for future failure. Using P-wave data we imaged the top of the saturated overburden, and using S-wave data we located vertical offsets and horizontal disruptions in the bedrock that resulted from subsidence processes. However, seismic data did not provide useful information about the road fill or roadway. This was due to surface wave interference, a lack of data resolution and insufficient media impedance contrasts. Although the penetration depth of surface radar was limited by road fill signal attenuation, 3D volumes of these data enabled high resolution imaging of rebar disruptions, fracture zones, and slump features within the roadway. The spacing of available boreholes and surface refracted-wave interference limited the effectiveness of the cross-hole radar in the near-surface road fill. However, using velocity tomograms and amplitude information, zones of increased secondary porosity were mapped in the overburden and bedrock that resulted from subsidence. Through coincident analyses of these data sets, we identified many locations where bedrock, overburden, road fill materials and the roadway structure had been disrupted by mine-related subsidence processes. Subsequent to classifying locations as high risk for future failure, our geophysical interpretations were confirmed through exploratory drilling and probing. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Conroy, James P AU - Guy, Erich D AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 137 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - tomography KW - bedrock KW - P-waves KW - mines KW - body waves KW - imagery KW - geologic hazards KW - three-dimensional models KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - geophysical methods KW - radar methods KW - reflection methods KW - elastic waves KW - land subsidence KW - seismic methods KW - risk assessment KW - seismic waves KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51653038?accountid=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=Near-surface+geology+and+subsidence+imaging+using+coincident+3D+surface-penetrating+radar%2C+multi-component+seismic+reflection%2C+and+cross-hole+radar+tomography&rft.au=Conroy%2C+James+P%3BGuy%2C+Erich+D%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Conroy&rft.aufirst=James&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=137&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, 38th annual meeting; Geological Society of America, Southeastern Section, 53rd 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 - bedrock; body waves; elastic waves; geologic hazards; geophysical methods; ground-penetrating radar; imagery; land subsidence; mines; P-waves; radar methods; reflection methods; risk assessment; seismic methods; seismic waves; three-dimensional models; tomography ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Phenomenological Models for Landscape Signatures: Review and Recommendations AN - 19482575; 7170627 AB - This report reviews, evaluates, and recommends atmospheric, environmental, and geophysical models that use physics to aid in understanding the impact that the natural environment has on the sensors that are commonly applied to the mine detection problem (either surface or buried). The report lists important predictive high-resolution atmospheric, environmental, and geophysical models. Priority models are evaluated to indicate their strengths and weaknesses. The report recommends areas needing further development to fill the gaps in predicting the effects of critical environmental factors on developing mine detection sensors. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Ballard, JR Jr AU - Mason, G L AU - Smith, JA AU - Balick, L K Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - Mar 2004 KW - Pollution Abstracts UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19482575?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+JR+Jr%3BMason%2C+G+L%3BSmith%2C+JA%3BBalick%2C+L+K&rft.aulast=Ballard&rft.aufirst=JR&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Phenomenological+Models+for+Landscape+Signatures%3A+Review+and+Recommendations&rft.title=Phenomenological+Models+for+Landscape+Signatures%3A+Review+and+Recommendations&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Wetland creation and restoration cost factors: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers AN - 19439886; 6708079 AB - This paper addresses topic-related issues that are specific to the programs of the Army Corps of Engineers in terms of the laws, policies, and regulations that impact us. Then it describes some of the programs used by the Corps for ecosystem restoration. JF - Proceedings of the Salmon Habitat Restoration Cost Workshop AU - Obradovich, P M A2 - Allen, ST A2 - Thomson, C A2 - Carlson, R (eds) Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 6 EP - 224 PB - Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 45 SE 82nd Dr Ste 100 Gladstone OR 97027 USA, [URL:http://www.psfmc.org] KW - Salmonids KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Salmon KW - Policies KW - Ecosystems KW - Freshwater KW - Environmental legislation KW - Costs KW - USA KW - Habitats KW - Habitat improvement KW - Legal aspects KW - Economic analysis KW - Regulations KW - Wetlands KW - Governments KW - Salmonidae KW - Q1 08644:Economics KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19439886?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=Obradovich%2C+P+M&rft.aulast=Obradovich&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=219&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Wetland+creation+and+restoration+cost+factors%3A+U.S.+Army+Corps+of+Engineers&rft.title=Wetland+creation+and+restoration+cost+factors%3A+U.S.+Army+Corps+of+Engineers&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Web-Enabling USACE Spatial Information for Pilotage Use: Achieving Improved Client Relations, Quality of Work, Data Management and Overall Safety of Navigation on Texas Waters AN - 18060032; 5933933 AB - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Galveston District, has a responsibility to provide marine spatial information in an accurate and timely manner to clients, such as pilots who navigate the waters off Texas. Due to increased vessel traffic, tighter under-keel clearance requirements and faster turn-around of hydrographic surveys, the USACE has the added pressure of providing value-added services to its customers. To provide value-added services, the Galveston District has implemented an integrated solution that combines a desktop marine spatial information management tool with web-mapping technology. The desktop software, CARIS BEAMS, provides tools such as Notice to Mariner production, bathymetric data storage and management, survey scheduling, channel condition reports, volumetric calculations, bathymetric contouring and data visualization. This article describes the technology behind the applications and the benefits to the pilot community. Before explaining the features and benefits of the technology adopted by the Galveston District. JF - Sea Technology AU - Hunt, T A AU - Wilson, K J AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, TX, USA Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 44 EP - 48 VL - 45 IS - 3 SN - 0093-3651, 0093-3651 KW - Oceanic Abstracts; Health & Safety Science Abstracts KW - Ships KW - Marine KW - USA, Texas, Galveston KW - Positioning systems KW - Boating KW - Hydrographic surveys KW - Navigation KW - Collision avoidance KW - Accidents KW - Prevention KW - Bathymetric data KW - pilots KW - Accident prevention KW - Data storage KW - ASW, USA, Texas, Galveston KW - Geographic information systems KW - Technology KW - Information systems KW - Marine technology KW - O 7060:Navigation and Communications KW - H 2000:Transportation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18060032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ahealthsafetyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Sea+Technology&rft.atitle=Web-Enabling+USACE+Spatial+Information+for+Pilotage+Use%3A+Achieving+Improved+Client+Relations%2C+Quality+of+Work%2C+Data+Management+and+Overall+Safety+of+Navigation+on+Texas+Waters&rft.au=Hunt%2C+T+A%3BWilson%2C+K+J&rft.aulast=Hunt&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=44&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Sea+Technology&rft.issn=00933651&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Ships; Bathymetric data; Positioning systems; Accident prevention; Data storage; Boating; Hydrographic surveys; Navigation; Marine technology; Information systems; Prevention; Accidents; Collision avoidance; pilots; Geographic information systems; Technology; USA, Texas, Galveston; ASW, USA, Texas, Galveston; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Shear stress and sediment resuspension in relation to submersed macrophyte biomass AN - 18051834; 5927512 AB - We examined the impacts of macrophyte beds dominated by a canopy-forming (Myriophyllum sibiricum) and a meadow-forming (Chara canescens) species on bottom shear stress ( tau ) and resuspension in shallow Lake Christina, Minnesota (U.S.A.). Studies were conducted in late summer, 1998, when macrophyte biomass levels exceeded 200 g m super(-2), and in early summer, 2000, when biomass was greatly reduced (<20 g m super(-2)) in both plant beds. The critical shear stress ( tau sub(c)) of sediments, measured experimentally in the laboratory, was low (1.4 dynes cm super(-2)) indicating potential for resuspension in the absence of macrophytes. During 1998, turbidity was low at the M. sibiricum and Chara station, rarely increasing when calculated bottom tau (calculated from wave theory assuming no biomass obstruction) exceeded tau subcsub, indicating that both beds reduced sediment resuspension at high biomass levels. In situ tau (estimated tau ), measured via gypsum sphere dissolution, did not exceed tau sub(c) above the sediment interface in either bed during 1998. In contrast, sediment resuspension occurred in both beds during similar high winds in 2000. However, estimated tau was lower than calculated bottom tau , suggesting that at low biomass, macrophytes were having some impact on tau . JF - Hydrobiologia AU - James, W F AU - Barko, J W AU - Butler, M G AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, P.O. Box 237, Spring Valley, WI 54767, U.S.A. Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - Mar 2004 SP - 181 EP - 191 PB - Kluwer Academic Publishers VL - 515 IS - 1-3 SN - 0018-8158, 0018-8158 KW - Bottom shear stress KW - Gypsum sphere dissolution KW - Shear stress KW - Submerged macrophytes KW - resuspension KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology KW - Interfaces KW - Myriophyllum KW - Freshwater KW - Bottom stress KW - Resuspended sediments KW - Lakes KW - gypsum KW - Shear Stress KW - Waves KW - Biotic factors KW - Wind KW - Chara canescens KW - Suspended Sediments KW - Resuspension KW - Laboratories KW - Aquatic plants KW - USA, Minnesota, Christina L. KW - Biomass KW - Sediments KW - Dominance KW - Chara KW - Macrophytes KW - Myriophyllum sibiricum KW - Gypsum KW - Water transparency KW - Turbidity KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - K 03009:Algae KW - SW 0850:Lakes KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - Q1 08422:Environmental effects UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18051834?accountid=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=Hydrobiologia&rft.atitle=Shear+stress+and+sediment+resuspension+in+relation+to+submersed+macrophyte+biomass&rft.au=James%2C+W+F%3BBarko%2C+J+W%3BButler%2C+M+G&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=515&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=181&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hydrobiologia&rft.issn=00188158&rft_id=info:doi/10.1023%2FB%3AHYDR.0000027329.67391.c6 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Resuspended sediments; Shear stress; Lakes; Water transparency; Gypsum; Resuspension; Aquatic plants; Biotic factors; Bottom stress; Turbidity; gypsum; Biomass; Sediments; Dominance; Suspended Sediments; Interfaces; Laboratories; Myriophyllum; Macrophytes; Chara; Shear Stress; Waves; Wind; Chara canescens; Myriophyllum sibiricum; USA, Minnesota, Christina L.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.0000027329.67391.c6 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sediment resuspension and light attenuation in Peoria Lake: can macrophytes improve water quality in this shallow system? AN - 17980893; 5927513 AB - We examined sediment resuspension and light attenuation in relation to the potential for macrophytes to improve water quality conditions in Peoria Lake, Illinois (U.S.A.). The lake exhibited high total suspended solids (TSS) loading and retention of predominantly fine-grained particles in 2000. Large fetches along prevailing wind rose, coupled with shallow morphometry and sediment particles composed of >90% silt and clay resulted in frequent periods of sediment resuspension. As calculated (wave theory) shear stress increased above the critical shear stress (measured experimentally), turbidity increased substantially at a resuspension monitoring station. Resuspension model explorations suggested that establishment of submersed aquatic macrophytes could substantially reduce sediment resuspension in Peoria Lake. However, K sub(d) is currently very high, while Secchi transparency low, at in-lake stations. Thus, in order to establish a persistent macrophyte population in the lake to control resuspension, the underwater light regime will have to improve quite dramatically. JF - Hydrobiologia AU - James, W F AU - Best, E P AU - Barko, J W AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - March 2004 SP - 193 EP - 201 PB - Kluwer Academic Publishers VL - 515 IS - 1-3 SN - 0018-8158, 0018-8158 KW - clay KW - resuspension KW - shear stress KW - silt KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Microbiology Abstracts C: Algology, Mycology & Protozoology KW - Bioremediation KW - Freshwater KW - Retention KW - Water quality KW - Resuspended sediments KW - Lakes KW - Suspended Solids KW - USA, Illinois, Peoria L. KW - Shear stress KW - Plantae KW - Water Quality KW - Aquatic plants KW - Silt KW - Suspended Load KW - Model Studies KW - Fetch KW - Water quality control KW - Macrophytes KW - Water transparency KW - Monitoring KW - Environment management KW - Turbidity KW - Sediment dynamics KW - Models KW - Ecosystem management KW - Shear Stress KW - Waves KW - Suspended load KW - Plant populations KW - Transparency KW - Suspended Sediments KW - Light attenuation KW - Sediments KW - Light effects KW - Underwater KW - Q1 08462:Benthos KW - K 03059:Algae KW - Q2 09144:Regional studies, expeditions and data reports KW - SW 0870:Erosion and sedimentation KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17980893?accountid=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=Hydrobiologia&rft.atitle=Sediment+resuspension+and+light+attenuation+in+Peoria+Lake%3A+can+macrophytes+improve+water+quality+in+this+shallow+system%3F&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 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Shear stress; Bioremediation; Aquatic plants; Light attenuation; Light effects; Water quality control; Resuspended sediments; Lakes; Water transparency; Ecosystem management; Suspended load; Plant populations; Environment management; Sediment dynamics; Water quality; Sediments; Models; Transparency; Suspended Sediments; Water Quality; Silt; Suspended Load; Retention; Model Studies; Fetch; Macrophytes; Underwater; Suspended Solids; Shear Stress; Waves; Monitoring; Turbidity; Plantae; USA, Illinois, Peoria L.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:HYDR.0000027328.00153.b2 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Radial Dispersion of Neighbors and the Small-Scale Competitive Impact of Two Annual Grasses on a Native Perennial Grass AN - 17924853; 5875552 AB - In California's Mediterranean type grasslands, native perennial grasses such as Nassella pulchra are surrounded by introduced annual species and these annuals are thought to have displaced natives through much of their range. Amongst other invaders, two grasses Lolium multiflorum and Bromus hordeaceus, commonly dominate portions of the grassland with potential for N. pulchra restoration. We hypothesized that competitor species differences and small-scale gaps (150 cm super(2)) could be important determinants of N. pulchra survival and performance on these sites. Lolium multiflorum and B. hordeaceus were planted in 20 cm diameter circular plots at a constant rate of 1 seed per cm super(2) surrounding newly transplanted N. pulchra plants. Nassella pulchra showed no significant effect of the species of competitor or from the distribution of the competitors. Both interspersion of patches of bare ground and separation of competitors into patches did not increase N. pulchra pre-dawn water potential, basal area change, number of seeds produced, or average weight of seeds. The presence of L. multiflorum was associated with a decrease in N. pulchra survival compared with plots with only B. hordeaceus. Plants with increases in basal area of less than 0.75 cm super(2) during the growing season had 74% mortality compared with no mortality in plants with more growth. However, initial N. pulchra plant size was not a good predictor of mortality. Limiting competition from annuals may increase survival of N. pulchra plantings, but 60% of the plants survived for at least 1 year, despite being transplanted into soil containing substantial annual grass seed. JF - Restoration Ecology AU - Fehmi, J S AU - Rice, K J AU - Laca, E A AD - U.S. Army ERDC-CERL Ecological Processes Branch, 2902 Newmark Drive, Champaign, IL 61826, USA, jeffrey.s.fehmi@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - Mar 2004 SP - 63 EP - 69 PB - Blackwell Science Ltd VL - 12 IS - 1 SN - 1061-2971, 1061-2971 KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - Grasses KW - Nassella pulchra KW - Lolium multiflorum KW - Environmental restoration KW - USA, California KW - Competition KW - Bromus hordeaceus KW - D 04715:Reclamation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17924853?accountid=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=Restoration+Ecology&rft.atitle=Radial+Dispersion+of+Neighbors+and+the+Small-Scale+Competitive+Impact+of+Two+Annual+Grasses+on+a+Native+Perennial+Grass&rft.au=Fehmi%2C+J+S%3BRice%2C+K+J%3BLaca%2C+E+A&rft.aulast=Fehmi&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=63&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Restoration+Ecology&rft.issn=10612971&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1061-2971.2004.00266.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Lolium multiflorum; Nassella pulchra; Bromus hordeaceus; USA, California; Grasses; Competition; Environmental restoration DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1061-2971.2004.00266.x ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Influence of Water Level on Torpedograss Establishment in Lake Okeechobee, Florida AN - 17556649; 5924895 AB - Lake Okeechobee, a 173,200 ha shallow subtropical lake located in south Florida, has been invaded recently by torpedograss (Panicum repens), an exotic, terrestrial species, that was intentionally introduced to Florida in the early 1900s. Since the 1970s, more than 6,000 ha of native plants, including spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa) and beakrush (Rhynchospora spp.) and open water habitat have been displaced by torpedograss in areas of the marsh where inundation depths often are less than 50 cm. The ability of torpedograss to disperse and become established at different water depths was evaluated in a series of experimental pond studies. These studies revealed that fragments remain buoyant for extended periods and so facilitate the dispersal of torpedograss within the lake. If fragments become anchored to sediment that is either exposed or in shallow water, they can readily root and establish mature plants. Once established, torpedograss can thrive in depths of 75 cm or less and can survive prolonged exposure to flooding depths greater than 1 m. In this manner, low water periods can contribute to the dispersal and colonization pattern of torpedograss in the lake. When coupled with lake elevation data, these findings suggest that low water levels or drawdowns would increase the marsh area susceptible to torpedograss invasion. JF - Lake and Reservoir Management AU - Smith, D H AU - Smart, R M AU - Hanlon, C G AD - USAERDC Lewisville Aquatic Ecosystem Research Facility, 201 East Jones Street, Lewisville, TX 75057, USA, Dian.H.Smith@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/03// PY - 2004 DA - Mar 2004 SP - 1 EP - 13 VL - 20 IS - 1 SN - 0743-8141, 0743-8141 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Drawdown KW - Fluvial Sediments KW - Roots KW - Freshwater KW - Shallow Water KW - Water levels KW - Colonization KW - Habitats KW - Lakes KW - Exotic Species KW - Exposure KW - Water Depth KW - Environmental effects KW - Aquatic plants KW - Water Level KW - Marshes KW - Sediments KW - USA, Florida, Okeechobee L. KW - Reservoir Management KW - Plant control KW - Panicum repens KW - Shallow water KW - Elevation KW - Flooding KW - Introduced species KW - Dispersion KW - SW 0850:Lakes KW - Q1 08422:Environmental effects KW - Q1 08484:Species interactions: parasites and diseases KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17556649?accountid=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=Influence+of+Water+Level+on+Torpedograss+Establishment+in+Lake+Okeechobee%2C+Florida&rft.au=Smith%2C+D+H%3BSmart%2C+R+M%3BHanlon%2C+C+G&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-03-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Lake+and+Reservoir+Management&rft.issn=07438141&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water levels; Colonization; Lakes; Plant control; Shallow water; Flooding; Environmental effects; Aquatic plants; Introduced species; Dispersion; Drawdown; Fluvial Sediments; Roots; Marshes; Water Level; Shallow Water; Sediments; Reservoir Management; Habitats; Exotic Species; Exposure; Elevation; Water Depth; Panicum repens; USA, Florida, Okeechobee L.; Freshwater ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 4 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36353769; 10655-040100_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353769?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 7 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36353269; 10655-040100_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 10 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36352218; 10655-040100_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 6 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36351319; 10655-040100_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 5 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36350018; 10655-040100_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36349983; 10655-040100_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36349864; 10655-040100_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 9 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36349818; 10655-040100_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36349759; 10655-040100_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 8 of 10] T2 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36349549; 10655-040100_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE STUDY, MISSOURI RIVER (REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 16357210; 10655 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised water control plan for the Missouri River main stem system is proposed. The main stem system consists of six dams and reservoirs located in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Water flowing down the Missouri River is stored in the six lakes and released as needed for downstream purposes. The Corps of Engineers operates the main stem system to balance the needs for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife. The water control plan was last revised in 1979. No structural changes to the reservoir system or navigation channels are under consideration. Instead, the six alternative plans considered in this final EIS focus on the amount of water stored in the permanent pool and the carryover multiple use zones of the lakes, and the allocation of stored water for downstream needs. The alternatives address permanent pool levels, the length of the normal navigation season, modification of navigation service criteria with respect to releases from main stem lakes as drought conditions approach, changes in springtime flows to create a more natural flow pattern for the benefit of native fish species, and the modification of the movement of stored water among the lakes in order to create a rising pool in each reservoir to benefit tern, plover, and native fish. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would improve recreational opportunities and fish and wildlife habitat within the main stem system. Habitat improvements would occur in all nine river reaches, and the greatest improvements would occur downstream from Sioux City, Iowa. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Annual benefits for navigation would be reduced significantly as a result of the shortening of the season and the changes in flow patterns. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and a revised draft EIS, see 94-0358D, Volume 18, Number 4 and 02-0106R Volume 26 Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040100, Summary--37 pages, Main Report (Volume I)--512 pages, Main Report (Volume II)--488 pages, Volume III (Appendix A, Part 1)--787-- pages, Volume IV (Appendix A, Part 2)--801 pages, Volume V--978 pages, Volume VI (Comments and Responses, Part 1)--194 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 2)--712 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 3)--961 pages, Volume VII (Comments and Responses, Part 4)--505 pages, CD-ROMS (2, February 28, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=MISSOURI+RIVER+MASTER+WATER+CONTROL+MANUAL+REVIEW+AND+UPDATE+STUDY%2C+MISSOURI+RIVER+%28REVISED+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Division, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 28, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). AN - 36438837; 10639 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 12.4-mile six-lane divided freeway, to be known as the Western Wake Freeway, in Wake County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is to provide high-speed, multi-lane, controlled access transportation to accommodate increasing demand in the Raleigh area. The facility would traverse the western incorporated limits of the town of Apex and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the town of Cary as well as unincorporated areas of western Wake County. More specifically, the freeway would begin just north of State Route (SR) 1172 (Old Smithfield Road between Apex and Holly Springs at NC 55 and extend to a point near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue) at NC 55 north of Cary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two route alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the build alternatives would provide five interchanges to be located at the proposed Holly Springs Bypass, US 1, Old US 1, US 64, and SR 1615 (Green Level Road). One grade separated railroad crossing would be required. The project would tie into Northern Wake Freeway at an interchange with NC 55 north of Cary and to the Southern Wake Freeway with an interchange at the Holly Springs Bypass south of Apex. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would extend 12.4 miles, while the other alternative alignment would extend 12.3 miles. Estimated construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs for the preferred alternative are $199.2 million and $52.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would constitute an important part of the proposed Raleigh Outer Look and help abate congestion on Interstate 440 as well as local arterials such as North Carolina (NC) 55 and NC 54. The area's attractiveness to industrial and institutional expansion would be enhanced, possibly increasing property values along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 46 residences and one school. One park, two cemeteries, and one nationally significant historic district would be impacted, and one electrical transmission line, three or three gas pipelines, nine sewer lines, and 28 streams would be traversed. From 3,379 to 3,576 feet of stream would require relocation. The facility could form a physical and psychological barrier negatively affecting connectivity between western and eastern portions of the corridor. Traffic-generated noise would impact 389 receptors, though installation of noise barriers would reduce the impacts at 279 sites. The project would displace 327.7 acres of upland natural systems, 14.53 acres of wetlands, and 11.8 to 11.1 acres of ponds. 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, see 00-0107D, Volume 24, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040083, Final EIS--344 pages and maps, Appendices--781 pages and maps, February 20, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-99-03-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cemeteries KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Pipelines KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina 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/36438837?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). AN - 36352676; 10639-040083_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 12.4-mile six-lane divided freeway, to be known as the Western Wake Freeway, in Wake County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is to provide high-speed, multi-lane, controlled access transportation to accommodate increasing demand in the Raleigh area. The facility would traverse the western incorporated limits of the town of Apex and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the town of Cary as well as unincorporated areas of western Wake County. More specifically, the freeway would begin just north of State Route (SR) 1172 (Old Smithfield Road between Apex and Holly Springs at NC 55 and extend to a point near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue) at NC 55 north of Cary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two route alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the build alternatives would provide five interchanges to be located at the proposed Holly Springs Bypass, US 1, Old US 1, US 64, and SR 1615 (Green Level Road). One grade separated railroad crossing would be required. The project would tie into Northern Wake Freeway at an interchange with NC 55 north of Cary and to the Southern Wake Freeway with an interchange at the Holly Springs Bypass south of Apex. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would extend 12.4 miles, while the other alternative alignment would extend 12.3 miles. Estimated construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs for the preferred alternative are $199.2 million and $52.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would constitute an important part of the proposed Raleigh Outer Look and help abate congestion on Interstate 440 as well as local arterials such as North Carolina (NC) 55 and NC 54. The area's attractiveness to industrial and institutional expansion would be enhanced, possibly increasing property values along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 46 residences and one school. One park, two cemeteries, and one nationally significant historic district would be impacted, and one electrical transmission line, three or three gas pipelines, nine sewer lines, and 28 streams would be traversed. From 3,379 to 3,576 feet of stream would require relocation. The facility could form a physical and psychological barrier negatively affecting connectivity between western and eastern portions of the corridor. Traffic-generated noise would impact 389 receptors, though installation of noise barriers would reduce the impacts at 279 sites. The project would displace 327.7 acres of upland natural systems, 14.53 acres of wetlands, and 11.8 to 11.1 acres of ponds. 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, see 00-0107D, Volume 24, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040083, Final EIS--344 pages and maps, Appendices--781 pages and maps, February 20, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-99-03-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cemeteries KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Pipelines KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina 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/36352676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - WESTERN WAKE FREEWAY, FROM NC 55 AT SR 1172 (OLD SMITHFIELD ROAD) TO NC 55 NEAR SR 1630 (ALSTON AVENUE), APPROXIMATELY 12 MILES, IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 6.408006T; TIP PROJECT NO. R-2635). AN - 36349605; 10639-040083_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 12.4-mile six-lane divided freeway, to be known as the Western Wake Freeway, in Wake County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is to provide high-speed, multi-lane, controlled access transportation to accommodate increasing demand in the Raleigh area. The facility would traverse the western incorporated limits of the town of Apex and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the town of Cary as well as unincorporated areas of western Wake County. More specifically, the freeway would begin just north of State Route (SR) 1172 (Old Smithfield Road between Apex and Holly Springs at NC 55 and extend to a point near SR 1630 (Alston Avenue) at NC 55 north of Cary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and two route alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Each of the build alternatives would provide five interchanges to be located at the proposed Holly Springs Bypass, US 1, Old US 1, US 64, and SR 1615 (Green Level Road). One grade separated railroad crossing would be required. The project would tie into Northern Wake Freeway at an interchange with NC 55 north of Cary and to the Southern Wake Freeway with an interchange at the Holly Springs Bypass south of Apex. The preferred alternative (Alternative A) would extend 12.4 miles, while the other alternative alignment would extend 12.3 miles. Estimated construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs for the preferred alternative are $199.2 million and $52.9 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would constitute an important part of the proposed Raleigh Outer Look and help abate congestion on Interstate 440 as well as local arterials such as North Carolina (NC) 55 and NC 54. The area's attractiveness to industrial and institutional expansion would be enhanced, possibly increasing property values along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in displacement of 46 residences and one school. One park, two cemeteries, and one nationally significant historic district would be impacted, and one electrical transmission line, three or three gas pipelines, nine sewer lines, and 28 streams would be traversed. From 3,379 to 3,576 feet of stream would require relocation. The facility could form a physical and psychological barrier negatively affecting connectivity between western and eastern portions of the corridor. Traffic-generated noise would impact 389 receptors, though installation of noise barriers would reduce the impacts at 279 sites. The project would displace 327.7 acres of upland natural systems, 14.53 acres of wetlands, and 11.8 to 11.1 acres of ponds. 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, see 00-0107D, Volume 24, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040083, Final EIS--344 pages and maps, Appendices--781 pages and maps, February 20, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-99-03-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cemeteries KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Pipelines KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina 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/36349605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%29.&rft.title=WESTERN+WAKE+FREEWAY%2C+FROM+NC+55+AT+SR+1172+%28OLD+SMITHFIELD+ROAD%29+TO+NC+55+NEAR+SR+1630+%28ALSTON+AVENUE%29%2C+APPROXIMATELY+12+MILES%2C+IN+WAKE+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+6.408006T%3B+TIP+PROJECT+NO.+R-2635%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 20, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEVISA FORK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PIKE COUNTY, KENTUCKY (PROJECT NUMBER 3-481-90008-0002). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LEVISA FORK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PIKE COUNTY, KENTUCKY (PROJECT NUMBER 3-481-90008-0002). AN - 36349483; 10623-040069_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood damage reduction plan for residents and properties within the floodplain of the Levisa Fork and its tributaries in Pike County, Kentucky is proposed. The study area is located in the Appalachian Mountains of eastern Kentucky in the watershed of the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River. Another occurrence of the flood along the Levisa Fork that occurred in April 1977 would result in damages to over 4,770 structures in the basin, resulting in as much as $282 million in losses. In addition to structural damages, flooding would damage transportation infrastructure valued at $10.8 million. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Two of the action alternatives would provide structural components at North Pikeville and Coal Run Village, combined with non-structural measures in the remainder of the project area. The third action alternative would consist entirely of nonstructural measures throughout the Pike County study area. The North Pikeville structural feature would consist of a floodwall designed to protect approximately 45 structures in an area north of downtown Pikeville along Mayo Trail, the access road along US 23/80/460. Structures between the river and the west side of the highway would be protected by the floodwall and levee system. The 4,475-foot-long, 18-foot-high floodwall would have a gate closure at Mayo Trail to the north of Pikeville High School, providing protection to the school and associated athletic fields as well as to several commercial structures and a residential area containing approximately 30 structures. An 850-foot sheet-pile retaining wall would be constructed as part of the floodwall behind pikeville High School to protect a school annex located close to the riverbank. A 48-inch-diameter interceptor line would be installed to collect interior drainage and a 93,000-gallon-per-minute (gpm) pump station would be located at the existing Kentucky Transport Cabinet maintenance facility on Mayo Trail to pump interior stormwater over the floodwall during flood events. The first Coal Run Village structure would consist of a floodwall and levee combination protecting 100 structures in Coal Run on the west side of US 23/80 /460. The 4,877-foot-long, 27-foot-high floodwall would have two gate closures at the downstream terminus of the project. A 54-inch-diameter interceptor line would be installed to collect interior drainage, and a 105,000-gpm would be located at Ratliff Branch to deal with interior drainage. A second Coal Run structure would consist of a floodwall and levee combination, extending 7,400 feet at an average height of 27 feet. Two upstream gates would close off Mayo Trail and US 23 during flood events. A 54-inch-diameter interceptor line and two 105,000-gpm pump stations, one at Ratliff Branch and another nearer to the tailroad line at the eastern end of the project, would be provided to address interior drainage. Materials for construction would be taken from two borrow areas located within a few miles of North Pikeville and Coal Run Village. Costs North Pikeville project component and the first and second components at Coal Run Village are estimated at $103 million, $103 million, and $150 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The floodwall and floodwall/levee systems would protect the three affected residential areas against the 100-year-frequency flood event, largely eliminating damage to residential and commercial property as well as transportation infrastructure. In addition to preventing property damage, the structures would reduce the risks to health and safety presented by a flood. Much of the floodplain would be returned to passive use open to wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the structural action alternative considered, the project would result in the temporary loss of 55 to 72 acres and the permanent loss of 20 to 25 acres of land and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, alter drainage patterns within the floodplain. Wetlands associated with borrow areas could be affected, and there would be a permanent loss of aquatic habitat along a portion of Ratliff Branch. The degradation of Levisa Fork banks would continue due to highly variable flows within the stream. Roosting habitat for the federally protected Indiana bat would be removed. Historic structures that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be removed, and potentially significant archaeological resources could be impacted by levee construction and excavation for the interceptors. Numerous residential structures would be displaced, and it is uncertain whether adequate replacement housing could be found in the immediate area. A church-related recreational area would be displaced, and the view of Levisa Fork would be blocked in areas adjacent to floodwalls. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), Water and Energy Development Appropriations Act of 1982, Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 040069, 261 pages and maps, February 13, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Historic Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Big Sandy River KW - Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River KW - Kentucky KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance KW - Water and Energy Development Appropriations Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEVISA+FORK+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PIKE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY+%28PROJECT+NUMBER+3-481-90008-0002%29.&rft.title=LEVISA+FORK+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PIKE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY+%28PROJECT+NUMBER+3-481-90008-0002%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Huntington, West Virginia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LEVISA FORK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PIKE COUNTY, KENTUCKY (PROJECT NUMBER 3-481-90008-0002). AN - 16348431; 10623 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a flood damage reduction plan for residents and properties within the floodplain of the Levisa Fork and its tributaries in Pike County, Kentucky is proposed. The study area is located in the Appalachian Mountains of eastern Kentucky in the watershed of the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River. Another occurrence of the flood along the Levisa Fork that occurred in April 1977 would result in damages to over 4,770 structures in the basin, resulting in as much as $282 million in losses. In addition to structural damages, flooding would damage transportation infrastructure valued at $10.8 million. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Two of the action alternatives would provide structural components at North Pikeville and Coal Run Village, combined with non-structural measures in the remainder of the project area. The third action alternative would consist entirely of nonstructural measures throughout the Pike County study area. The North Pikeville structural feature would consist of a floodwall designed to protect approximately 45 structures in an area north of downtown Pikeville along Mayo Trail, the access road along US 23/80/460. Structures between the river and the west side of the highway would be protected by the floodwall and levee system. The 4,475-foot-long, 18-foot-high floodwall would have a gate closure at Mayo Trail to the north of Pikeville High School, providing protection to the school and associated athletic fields as well as to several commercial structures and a residential area containing approximately 30 structures. An 850-foot sheet-pile retaining wall would be constructed as part of the floodwall behind pikeville High School to protect a school annex located close to the riverbank. A 48-inch-diameter interceptor line would be installed to collect interior drainage and a 93,000-gallon-per-minute (gpm) pump station would be located at the existing Kentucky Transport Cabinet maintenance facility on Mayo Trail to pump interior stormwater over the floodwall during flood events. The first Coal Run Village structure would consist of a floodwall and levee combination protecting 100 structures in Coal Run on the west side of US 23/80 /460. The 4,877-foot-long, 27-foot-high floodwall would have two gate closures at the downstream terminus of the project. A 54-inch-diameter interceptor line would be installed to collect interior drainage, and a 105,000-gpm would be located at Ratliff Branch to deal with interior drainage. A second Coal Run structure would consist of a floodwall and levee combination, extending 7,400 feet at an average height of 27 feet. Two upstream gates would close off Mayo Trail and US 23 during flood events. A 54-inch-diameter interceptor line and two 105,000-gpm pump stations, one at Ratliff Branch and another nearer to the tailroad line at the eastern end of the project, would be provided to address interior drainage. Materials for construction would be taken from two borrow areas located within a few miles of North Pikeville and Coal Run Village. Costs North Pikeville project component and the first and second components at Coal Run Village are estimated at $103 million, $103 million, and $150 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The floodwall and floodwall/levee systems would protect the three affected residential areas against the 100-year-frequency flood event, largely eliminating damage to residential and commercial property as well as transportation infrastructure. In addition to preventing property damage, the structures would reduce the risks to health and safety presented by a flood. Much of the floodplain would be returned to passive use open to wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the structural action alternative considered, the project would result in the temporary loss of 55 to 72 acres and the permanent loss of 20 to 25 acres of land and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat, alter drainage patterns within the floodplain. Wetlands associated with borrow areas could be affected, and there would be a permanent loss of aquatic habitat along a portion of Ratliff Branch. The degradation of Levisa Fork banks would continue due to highly variable flows within the stream. Roosting habitat for the federally protected Indiana bat would be removed. Historic structures that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be removed, and potentially significant archaeological resources could be impacted by levee construction and excavation for the interceptors. Numerous residential structures would be displaced, and it is uncertain whether adequate replacement housing could be found in the immediate area. A church-related recreational area would be displaced, and the view of Levisa Fork would be blocked in areas adjacent to floodwalls. LEGAL MANDATES: Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), Water and Energy Development Appropriations Act of 1982, Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 040069, 261 pages and maps, February 13, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Historic Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Big Sandy River KW - Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River KW - Kentucky KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance KW - Water and Energy Development Appropriations Act of 1982, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16348431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LEVISA+FORK+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PIKE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY+%28PROJECT+NUMBER+3-481-90008-0002%29.&rft.title=LEVISA+FORK+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PIKE+COUNTY%2C+KENTUCKY+%28PROJECT+NUMBER+3-481-90008-0002%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Huntington, West Virginia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 13, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIR OPERATIONS STUDY, TENNESSEE, ALABAMA, KENTUCKY, GEORGIA, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, AND VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIR OPERATIONS STUDY, TENNESSEE, ALABAMA, KENTUCKY, GEORGIA, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, AND VIRGINIA. AN - 36355934; 10635-040079_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the reservoir operations system applicable to impoundments administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia is proposed. The TVA administers a multi-purpose system that provides for he use, conservation, and development of water resources associated with the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. In carrying out this mission, TVA owns and operates a system of 49 dams and reservoirs and associated water control system facilities to reduce the risk of flooding, enable year-round navigation, supply affordable and reliable electricity, improve water quality and supply, provide recreational opportunities, stimulate economic growth, and provide a wide range of other public benefits. The last major review of the TVA system was completed in 1990; the proposed changes were approved in 1991. Nine policy alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current operations system, are considered in this programmatic final EIS. The action alternatives would change, to various degrees, reservoir levels and flows through the reservoir system and the seasonal timing of flows, resulting in a mixed suite of environmental and socioeconomic effects. Results of the analysis indicate that there may be sufficient flexibility in the reservoir system such that TVA's reservoir operations policy could be changed to achieve greater overall public value; however, changes in the current balance among objectives would involve significant tradeoffs, including the potential increase in flood damages and power costs. The TVA has identified a preferred reservoir operations policy alternative, which combines and adjusts elements of the alternatives identified in the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed changes to the reservoir operations system could result in improvement of some or all of the abovementioned services provided to TVA beneficiaries. Cost containment would be a major consideration in evaluating each alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Changes in certain services provided by the current reservoir operations system could result in decrements with respect to other services. Moreover, reservoir operations would continue to have impacts associated with large artificial impoundments, including serious impacts of impoundment fluctuations, as well as with alteration of downstream ecosystems due to dam release levels and the timing of releases. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0486D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040079, Final EIS--922 pages, Appendices--977 pages, February 12, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alabama KW - Cumberland River KW - Georgia KW - Kentucky KW - Mississippi KW - North Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee River KW - Virginia KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TENNESSEE+VALLEY+AUTHORITY+RESERVOIR+OPERATIONS+STUDY%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+ALABAMA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+GEORGIA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=TENNESSEE+VALLEY+AUTHORITY+RESERVOIR+OPERATIONS+STUDY%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+ALABAMA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+GEORGIA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; TVA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIR OPERATIONS STUDY, TENNESSEE, ALABAMA, KENTUCKY, GEORGIA, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, AND VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIR OPERATIONS STUDY, TENNESSEE, ALABAMA, KENTUCKY, GEORGIA, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, AND VIRGINIA. AN - 36353667; 10635-040079_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the reservoir operations system applicable to impoundments administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia is proposed. The TVA administers a multi-purpose system that provides for he use, conservation, and development of water resources associated with the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. In carrying out this mission, TVA owns and operates a system of 49 dams and reservoirs and associated water control system facilities to reduce the risk of flooding, enable year-round navigation, supply affordable and reliable electricity, improve water quality and supply, provide recreational opportunities, stimulate economic growth, and provide a wide range of other public benefits. The last major review of the TVA system was completed in 1990; the proposed changes were approved in 1991. Nine policy alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current operations system, are considered in this programmatic final EIS. The action alternatives would change, to various degrees, reservoir levels and flows through the reservoir system and the seasonal timing of flows, resulting in a mixed suite of environmental and socioeconomic effects. Results of the analysis indicate that there may be sufficient flexibility in the reservoir system such that TVA's reservoir operations policy could be changed to achieve greater overall public value; however, changes in the current balance among objectives would involve significant tradeoffs, including the potential increase in flood damages and power costs. The TVA has identified a preferred reservoir operations policy alternative, which combines and adjusts elements of the alternatives identified in the draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed changes to the reservoir operations system could result in improvement of some or all of the abovementioned services provided to TVA beneficiaries. Cost containment would be a major consideration in evaluating each alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Changes in certain services provided by the current reservoir operations system could result in decrements with respect to other services. Moreover, reservoir operations would continue to have impacts associated with large artificial impoundments, including serious impacts of impoundment fluctuations, as well as with alteration of downstream ecosystems due to dam release levels and the timing of releases. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0486D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040079, Final EIS--922 pages, Appendices--977 pages, February 12, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alabama KW - Cumberland River KW - Georgia KW - Kentucky KW - Mississippi KW - North Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee River KW - Virginia KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TENNESSEE+VALLEY+AUTHORITY+RESERVOIR+OPERATIONS+STUDY%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+ALABAMA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+GEORGIA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=TENNESSEE+VALLEY+AUTHORITY+RESERVOIR+OPERATIONS+STUDY%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+ALABAMA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+GEORGIA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; TVA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 12, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SYSTEM. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SYSTEM. AN - 36352092; 10610-040056_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train (HST) system for intercity travel in California is proposed. The system would connect the major metropolitan areas of the state from Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose through Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, and Bakersfield, to Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. The need to improve the state's transportation infrastructure is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond, and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result for California's highways and airports. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, the Modal Alternative, would combine potential improvements to the existing highway and transportation facilities. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would provide the HST system, consisting of an electrically driven steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system and stations. The HST system would extend approximately 700 miles and would provide technology capable of achieving speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on tracks that would be largely dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and physical constraints. To reduce environmental impacts, extensive portions of many of the alignment options lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel setments? would be provided through the mountain passes (Diablo Range/Pacheco Pass between south San Jose and the Merced, and the Tehachapi Mountains between Bakersfield and Sylmar. The system would incorporate state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated control systems. The HST would transport as many as 68 million passengers annually by the year 2020, with the potential to accommodate higher ridership by adding trains or using longer trains. The HST Alternative includes several corridor /alignment and station options. The Modal Alternative would include adding over 2,970 lane miles to existing highways and 60 gates and five runways to existing state airports. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The HST system would provide a new mode of intercity travel and an improved level of connectivity between existing transportation modes that would not be provided by either of the other alternatives under considerations. High-speed trains would provide door-to-door travel times not unlike, and in some cases better, than air transportation. Highway accident rates would decline significantly due to train ridership and the reduction in highway travel miles per passenger. Reduced vehicular congestion on highways would improve air quality and reduce ambient noise in the vicinity of sensitive receptors in many areas; air quality would improve on a regional basis. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the system would result in displacement of commercial and residential properties, disruption of communities and neighborhoods, increased noise and vibration for residences and businesses located along the tracks, local traffic impacts in the vicinity of stations, impacts to historic properties and archaeological sites, impacts on parks and recreational resources, visual impacts in scenic areas of the state; impacts to sensitive biological resources and wetlands, use of energy, and displacement and severance of agricultural land. 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.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040056, Draft EIS--1,781 pages, Appendices--1,566 pages, February 3, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Air Quality KW - Cost Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+SYSTEM.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+SYSTEM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN SYSTEM. AN - 16348390; 10610 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed train (HST) system for intercity travel in California is proposed. The system would connect the major metropolitan areas of the state from Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose through Stockton, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, and Bakersfield, to Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. The need to improve the state's transportation infrastructure is directly related to the population growth and increased intercity travel demand expected over the next 20 years and beyond, and the increased travel delays and congestion that would result for California's highways and airports. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, the Modal Alternative, would combine potential improvements to the existing highway and transportation facilities. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would provide the HST system, consisting of an electrically driven steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system and stations. The HST system would extend approximately 700 miles and would provide technology capable of achieving speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on tracks that would be largely dedicated, fully grade-separated, and fenced. The track would be at-grade, in an open trench or tunnel, or on an elevated guideway, depending on terrain and physical constraints. To reduce environmental impacts, extensive portions of many of the alignment options lie within or adjacent to existing rail or highway rights-of-way, rather than on new alignment. Tunnel setments? would be provided through the mountain passes (Diablo Range/Pacheco Pass between south San Jose and the Merced, and the Tehachapi Mountains between Bakersfield and Sylmar. The system would incorporate state-of-the-art safety, signaling, and automated control systems. The HST would transport as many as 68 million passengers annually by the year 2020, with the potential to accommodate higher ridership by adding trains or using longer trains. The HST Alternative includes several corridor /alignment and station options. The Modal Alternative would include adding over 2,970 lane miles to existing highways and 60 gates and five runways to existing state airports. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The HST system would provide a new mode of intercity travel and an improved level of connectivity between existing transportation modes that would not be provided by either of the other alternatives under considerations. High-speed trains would provide door-to-door travel times not unlike, and in some cases better, than air transportation. Highway accident rates would decline significantly due to train ridership and the reduction in highway travel miles per passenger. Reduced vehicular congestion on highways would improve air quality and reduce ambient noise in the vicinity of sensitive receptors in many areas; air quality would improve on a regional basis. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of the system would result in displacement of commercial and residential properties, disruption of communities and neighborhoods, increased noise and vibration for residences and businesses located along the tracks, local traffic impacts in the vicinity of stations, impacts to historic properties and archaeological sites, impacts on parks and recreational resources, visual impacts in scenic areas of the state; impacts to sensitive biological resources and wetlands, use of energy, and displacement and severance of agricultural land. 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.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040056, Draft EIS--1,781 pages, Appendices--1,566 pages, February 3, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Farmlands KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Air Quality KW - Cost Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - California KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16348390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+SYSTEM.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN+SYSTEM.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C.; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Wavelets and the generalization of the variogram AN - 51512318; 2007-003605 JF - Mathematical Geology AU - Bosch, E H AU - Oliver, M A AU - Webster, R Y1 - 2004/02// PY - 2004 DA - February 2004 SP - 147 EP - 186 PB - Springer, Dordrecht VL - 36 IS - 2 SN - 0882-8121, 0882-8121 KW - soils KW - clay KW - case studies KW - variograms KW - wavelets KW - clastic sediments KW - variance analysis KW - statistical analysis KW - sediments KW - kriging KW - algorithms KW - 25:Soils UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51512318?accountid=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=Mathematical+Geology&rft.atitle=Wavelets+and+the+generalization+of+the+variogram&rft.au=Bosch%2C+E+H%3BOliver%2C+M+A%3BWebster%2C+R&rft.aulast=Bosch&rft.aufirst=E&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=147&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Mathematical+Geology&rft.issn=08828121&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/journal.asp?wasp=b408f16fc4da4b01a4296f132139c809&referrer=parent&backto=browsepublicationsresults,1625,2444; LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 24 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - MATGED N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; case studies; clastic sediments; clay; kriging; sediments; soils; statistical analysis; variance analysis; variograms; wavelets ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Waste volume estimation using geophysical methods in a complex geologic setting AN - 50888011; 2005-044546 JF - Proceedings of SAGEEP AU - Thompson, Michael D AU - Clemens, Drew AU - Miller, Steven AU - Tesner, John AU - Mandell, Wayne AU - Durgin, Phil AU - Davies, Bill AU - McKenna, Jim AU - Allred, Barry Y1 - 2004/02// PY - 2004 DA - February 2004 SP - 733 EP - 743 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Wheat Ridge, CO VL - 2004 KW - United States KW - Montgomery County Virginia KW - geophysical surveys KW - landfills KW - environmental analysis KW - remediation KW - ground water KW - Radford Army Ammunition Plant KW - bedrock KW - tectonic elements KW - seismic profiles KW - Virginia KW - pollutants KW - geophysical methods KW - electrical methods KW - pollution KW - resistivity KW - two-dimensional models KW - seismic methods KW - Pulaski County Virginia KW - surveys KW - geophysical profiles KW - waste disposal KW - military facilities KW - 20:Applied geophysics KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50888011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+SAGEEP&rft.atitle=Waste+volume+estimation+using+geophysical+methods+in+a+complex+geologic+setting&rft.au=Thompson%2C+Michael+D%3BClemens%2C+Drew%3BMiller%2C+Steven%3BTesner%2C+John%3BMandell%2C+Wayne%3BDurgin%2C+Phil%3BDavies%2C+Bill%3BMcKenna%2C+Jim%3BAllred%2C+Barry&rft.aulast=Thompson&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=2004&rft.issue=&rft.spage=733&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+SAGEEP&rft.issn=1554-8015&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/sageep/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Symposium on the Application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 5 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bedrock; electrical methods; environmental analysis; geophysical methods; geophysical profiles; geophysical surveys; ground water; landfills; military facilities; Montgomery County Virginia; pollutants; pollution; Pulaski County Virginia; Radford Army Ammunition Plant; remediation; resistivity; seismic methods; seismic profiles; surveys; tectonic elements; two-dimensional models; United States; Virginia; waste disposal ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Seismic investigation of a sinkhole on Clearwater Dam AN - 50884239; 2005-044573 JF - Proceedings of SAGEEP AU - Miller, Richard D AU - Ivanov, Julian AU - Hartung, Steve AU - Block, Lisa AU - Allred, Barry Y1 - 2004/02// PY - 2004 DA - February 2004 SP - 1082 EP - 1098 PB - Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society, Wheat Ridge, CO VL - 2004 KW - United States KW - tomography KW - seismic profiles KW - geophysical surveys KW - erosion KW - southeastern Missouri KW - Missouri KW - crosshole methods KW - geophysical methods KW - reflection methods KW - karst KW - seismic methods KW - Clearwater Dam KW - sinkholes KW - dams KW - surveys KW - risk assessment KW - geophysical profiles KW - Reynolds County Missouri KW - solution features KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50884239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+SAGEEP&rft.atitle=Seismic+investigation+of+a+sinkhole+on+Clearwater+Dam&rft.au=Miller%2C+Richard+D%3BIvanov%2C+Julian%3BHartung%2C+Steve%3BBlock%2C+Lisa%3BAllred%2C+Barry&rft.aulast=Miller&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=2004&rft.issue=&rft.spage=1082&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Proceedings+of+SAGEEP&rft.issn=1554-8015&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/sageep/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Symposium on the Application of geophysics to engineering and environmental problems N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 13 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Clearwater Dam; crosshole methods; dams; erosion; geophysical methods; geophysical profiles; geophysical surveys; karst; Missouri; reflection methods; Reynolds County Missouri; risk assessment; seismic methods; seismic profiles; sinkholes; solution features; southeastern Missouri; surveys; tomography; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SELECT Version 1.0 Beta: A One-Dimensional Reservoir Selective Withdrawal Model Spreadsheet AN - 19445565; 7189977 AB - SELECT is a numerical, one-dimensional model of selective withdrawal developed at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. SELECT v1.0 Beta uses Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software to compute withdrawal characteristics and release water quality for various operational alternatives. The spreadsheet implementation of the SELECT model provides a highly interactive environment for the application of the model. This guide was developed to assist users of the SELECT v1.0 Beta spreadsheet model. The guide briefly discusses the concepts of selective withdrawal in reservoirs and describes how those concepts are implemented in the spreadsheet model. It then provides an overview of the execution of the spreadsheet model and includes guidance on preparing the required input data for the model. Examples of model input and model output are provided. JF - Special Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory AU - Schneider, M L AU - Wilhelms, S C AU - Yates, LI Y1 - 2004/02// PY - 2004 DA - February 2004 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Selective Withdrawal KW - water quality KW - Mathematical models KW - Water reservoirs KW - Laboratories KW - Water Quality KW - Water quality KW - Model Studies KW - Computer programs KW - USA KW - Research KW - Reservoirs KW - Research programs KW - Modelling KW - Q2 09127:General papers on resources 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/19445565?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=Schneider%2C+M+L%3BWilhelms%2C+S+C%3BYates%2C+LI&rft.aulast=Schneider&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SELECT+Version+1.0+Beta%3A+A+One-Dimensional+Reservoir+Selective+Withdrawal+Model+Spreadsheet&rft.title=SELECT+Version+1.0+Beta%3A+A+One-Dimensional+Reservoir+Selective+Withdrawal+Model+Spreadsheet&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 - Water budget and cost-effectiveness analysis of wetland restoration alternatives: a case study of Levy Prairie, Alachua County, Florida AN - 19413431; 6075953 AB - A method was developed to utilize an airborne laser swath mapping-produced digital elevation model to evaluate and compare several restoration alternatives for the 660 ha Levy Prairie in north-central Florida. Detailed water budget analysis and a histogram of the elevation data points coupled with a level-pool assumption over the prairie basin allowed for determination of the hydroperiod on an areal basis. This analysis method facilitated comparison of restoration alternatives in terms of the restoration project objective to create permanently inundated conditions at water depths 0.15-0.61 m (for waterfowl) over greater than 50% of the prairie area within the first 5 years after construction. Construction costs were estimated and compared for each of the alternatives that attained the restoration objective, with the least cost project identified as the recommended alternative. JF - Ecological Engineering AU - Kirk, JA AU - Wise, W R AU - Delfino, J J AD - US Army Corps of Engineers New Orleans District, Box 60267, New, Orleans, LA 70160-0267, USA, bwise@ufl.edu Y1 - 2004/02// PY - 2004 DA - February 2004 SP - 43 EP - 60 PB - Elsevier Science B.V., P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl] VL - 22 IS - 1 SN - 0925-8574, 0925-8574 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts KW - Wetlands restoration KW - Hydroperiod KW - Airborne laser swath mapping KW - Water budget KW - Waterfowl KW - USA, Florida KW - Case Studies KW - Hydrologic Budget KW - Methodology KW - Prairies KW - Habitat improvement KW - Elevation KW - Construction Costs KW - Environmental restoration KW - Lasers KW - Wetlands KW - Histograms KW - Aquatic birds KW - Q5 08523:Conservation, wildlife management and recreation KW - D 04001:Methodology - general KW - SW 0810:General KW - D 04715:Reclamation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19413431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ecological+Engineering&rft.atitle=Water+budget+and+cost-effectiveness+analysis+of+wetland+restoration+alternatives%3A+a+case+study+of+Levy+Prairie%2C+Alachua+County%2C+Florida&rft.au=Kirk%2C+JA%3BWise%2C+W+R%3BDelfino%2C+J+J&rft.aulast=Kirk&rft.aufirst=JA&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=43&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecological+Engineering&rft.issn=09258574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecoleng.2004.01.005 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water budget; Habitat improvement; Wetlands; Aquatic birds; Environmental restoration; Lasers; Methodology; Waterfowl; Prairies; Case Studies; Elevation; Construction Costs; Hydrologic Budget; Histograms; USA, Florida DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.01.005 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Western Washington Inter-Agency Dredging Coordination Workgroup--An Interagency, Cross-jurisdictional Success Story AN - 18023133; 5870765 AB - Management of dredging operations in western Washington requires the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to interact with agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. Dredging projects are often opposed at various levels due to poor communication, bureaucratic unresponsiveness to legitimate concerns and issues, and misunderstanding of methods and project necessity. Recognizing these constraints, the Seattle District, USACE, created an interagency work group in 1998 to facilitate collaboration among various agencies. A formal agreement between agencies allows staff to coordinate through the work group with out seeking higher approval. Semi-annual meetings allow staff to exchange information, update activities, and direct work to the appropriate agency. The work group has been successful in removing barriers to timely concurrence on Endangered Species Act issues (6 months down to 2-4 weeks), eased tensions between agencies, and created a better understanding and acceptance of the need for and benefits of dredging in the maintenance of navigable waterways in western Washington. A beneficial use work group has also grown from this effort. JF - 2003 Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Resarch Conference Proceedings AU - Hoffman, P L AU - Hart, G A2 - Droscher, TW A2 - Fraser, DA (eds) Y1 - 2004/02// PY - 2004 DA - February 2004 PB - Puget Sound Action Team, PO Box 40900 Olympia WA 98504 USA KW - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Development projects KW - Jurisdiction KW - Dredging KW - Regional planning KW - INE, USA, Washington, Puget Sound KW - INE, USA, Washington, Seattle KW - Governments KW - INE, Canada, British Columbia, Georgia Basin KW - Environmental protection KW - Q5 08505:Prevention and control KW - Q1 08121:Law, policy, economics and social sciences UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18023133?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=Hoffman%2C+P+L%3BHart%2C+G&rft.aulast=Hoffman&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Western+Washington+Inter-Agency+Dredging+Coordination+Workgroup--An+Interagency%2C+Cross-jurisdictional+Success+Story&rft.title=Western+Washington+Inter-Agency+Dredging+Coordination+Workgroup--An+Interagency%2C+Cross-jurisdictional+Success+Story&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-21 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Tundra Fire and Vegetation Change along a Hillslope on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, U.S.A AN - 17826996; 6053516 AB - A 1977 tundra fire burned a hillslope where prefire soils and vegetation ranged from poorly drained moist tussock-shrub tundra on the lower slopes to well-drained dwarf shrub tundra on the back slope and very poorly drained wet sedge meadow on the flat crest. We sampled the vegetation on this slope before the fire and at 8 sites following the fire at irregular intervals from 1 yr to 25 yr. During the first decade after the fire, short-term recovery was dominated by bryophytes, sedges, and grasses from both regrowing sedge tussocks and seedlings. However, during the second and third decade, and by 24 yr after the fire, evergreen (Ledum palustre) and deciduous shrubs (mainly Salix pulchra willow) expanded dramatically so that shrub cover was generally higher than before the fire. Labrador tea has increased by vegetative means on the poorly drained lowest 3 tussock-shrub tundra sites. Upslope on the better-drained and more severely burned tussock-shrub and dwarf shrub tundra sites, willows became established from seed mainly during the first 10 yr after the fire and, based on their relatively large size (0.5-1 m tall) and cover, have grown rapidly during the past 15 to 20 yr. There has been very little or no recovery of Sphagnum moss and fruticose lichens after 24 yr at any site, except for Sphagnum moss in the wet meadow site. The permafrost active layer thickness has diminished to prefire levels at the lower slope tussock-shrub tundra sites but is much greater or degraded completely on the steeper slope, corresponding with the distribution of willow shrub colonization. These changes in tundra vegetation and permafrost following fire suggest that such fires could accelerate the predicted effects of climate warming on ecosystems in the Arctic. JF - Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research AU - Racine, C AU - Jandt, R AU - Meyers, C AU - Dennis, J AD - Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH 03755, U.S.A, cracine@crrel.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/02// PY - 2004 DA - Feb 2004 SP - 1 EP - 10 PB - Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR), University of Colorado VL - 36 IS - 1 SN - 1523-0430, 1523-0430 KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - Shrubs KW - Colonization KW - Fires KW - Ledum palustre KW - Sphagnum KW - Meadows KW - Tundra KW - Permafrost KW - Vegetation KW - Slope KW - Salix pulchra KW - D 04630:Bryophytes/pteridophytes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17826996?accountid=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=Arctic%2C+Antarctic%2C+and+Alpine+Research&rft.atitle=Tundra+Fire+and+Vegetation+Change+along+a+Hillslope+on+the+Seward+Peninsula%2C+Alaska%2C+U.S.A&rft.au=Racine%2C+C%3BJandt%2C+R%3BMeyers%2C+C%3BDennis%2C+J&rft.aulast=Racine&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Arctic%2C+Antarctic%2C+and+Alpine+Research&rft.issn=15230430&rft_id=info:doi/10.1043%2F1523-0430%282004%290362.0.CO%3B2 L2 - http://journals.allenpress.com/jrnlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1523-0430&volume=36&page=1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Sphagnum; Salix pulchra; Ledum palustre; Fires; Tundra; Shrubs; Slope; Vegetation; Meadows; Permafrost; Colonization DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1043/1523-0430(2004)036<0001:TFAVCA>2.0.CO;2 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Arctic haze, mercury and the chemical composition of snow across northwestern Alaska AN - 16168650; 5890899 AB - We sampled three layers of snow at 16 sites along a 1200 km transect from Nome to Barrow across northwestern Alaska. Samples were analyzed for major element concentrations, specific conductance and pH. Samples from five of the sites were analyzed for trace element concentrations. Pb, Cd, SO sub(4) super(2-) and non-sea salt SO sub(4) super(2-) concentrations were significantly higher in layers deposited later in the winter than those deposited earlier. This is consistent with the seasonal increase in atmospheric aerosol loading (arctic haze) that develops as the Arctic polar front expands southward in March and April. Haze contaminant concentrations in the snow pack were as high south of the Brooks Range as they were to the north, suggesting the Brooks Range is not an effective orographic barrier to aerosol transport. Computed yearly non-sea salt SO sub(4) super(2-) loading rates at the 16 sites ranged from 12 to 281 mg/m super(2)/yr. Elevated concentrations of Hg, Na and Cl were measured near the Arctic Ocean coast but not near the Bering Sea coast. To explain this pattern we suggest that the 'effective distance from the coast, ' inferred from prevailing wind directions and storm tracks, is critical in governing whether halogen emissions from the ocean are available for photochemical reactions that result in Hg deposition to the snow. JF - Atmospheric Environment AU - Douglas, T A AU - Sturm, M AD - US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Post Office Box 35170, Fort Wainwright, AK 99703-0170, USA, thomas.a.douglas@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004/02// PY - 2004 DA - Feb 2004 SP - 805 EP - 820 PB - Elsevier Science B.V., P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl/] VL - 38 IS - 6 SN - 1352-2310, 1352-2310 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Arctic KW - Snow chemistry KW - Trace elements KW - Aerosols KW - Heavy metals KW - Haze KW - Chemical Composition KW - Seasonal variations KW - pH KW - USA, Alaska KW - Atmospheric Chemistry KW - Air Pollution KW - Mercury in snow KW - Chemical composition KW - Halogens KW - Snow KW - Chemical composition of snow KW - Arctic aerosols KW - Hydrogen Ion Concentration KW - Trace Elements KW - Polar environments KW - Arctic haze KW - Salts KW - Coastal zone KW - Photochemicals KW - Mercury deposition KW - Deposition KW - Mercury KW - M2 551.510.42:Air Pollution (551.510.42) KW - P 0000:AIR POLLUTION KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution KW - M2 551.578.4:Crystalline (551.578.4) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16168650?accountid=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=Atmospheric+Environment&rft.atitle=Arctic+haze%2C+mercury+and+the+chemical+composition+of+snow+across+northwestern+Alaska&rft.au=Douglas%2C+T+A%3BSturm%2C+M&rft.aulast=Douglas&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-02-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=805&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Atmospheric+Environment&rft.issn=13522310&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.atmosenv.2003.10.042 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mercury in snow; Mercury deposition; Arctic aerosols; Chemical composition of snow; Arctic haze; Coastal zone; Chemical composition; Photochemicals; Heavy metals; Snow; Mercury; Polar environments; Seasonal variations; pH; Haze; Trace elements; Air Pollution; Atmospheric Chemistry; Salts; Aerosols; Halogens; Deposition; Hydrogen Ion Concentration; Trace Elements; Chemical Composition; Arctic; USA, Alaska DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.10.042 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REUSE OF MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL PONDS, CITY OF VALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - REUSE OF MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL PONDS, CITY OF VALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36360092; 10607-040053_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The commercial use of disposal ponds on Mare Island for the disposition of material dredged from the San Francisco Bay area of California is proposed. Mare Island is the location of the former Mare Island Naval Facility, which closed on April 1, 1996. The island is located in the northern portion of San Francisco Bay within the city of Vallejo. The Mare Island disposal ponds have been identified in San Francisco Bay's Long Term Management Strategy planning documents as a candidate site for upland placement of dredged material. WESTON Solutions, Inc., proposes the use of seven of the 10 existing disposal ponds on Mare Island for the disposal of material dredged from projects throughout the bay area. The ponds would be operated as commercial storage area available for the disposal of dredged material by various public and private operators. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative of the city of Vallejo (Alternative 1) would involve placement of regional dredged material in Ponds 2N, 2M, 2S, 4N, 4M, and 4S, which are contiguous, as well as Pond 7. The pond levees would be raised over time to final elevations ranging from 20 to 38 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD) of 1929, achieving a disposal capacity of 9.3 million cubic yards (mcy). These elevations would not represent the maximum geotechnically feasible heights. Alternative 2 would involve the use of the same seven ponds as Alternative 1, but the levee would be raised to final elevations of between 34 feet and 38 feet NGVD. These elevations would represent the maximum geotechnically feasible heights. Capacity of the disposal facility would be expanded by 2.4 mcy compared to Alternative 1, for a total capacity of 11.7 mcy. Alternative 3 would involve the use of only the six contiguous ponds. Levees would be raised to the maximum heights that are geotechnically feasible, as under Alternative 2. The capacity of the disposal facility would be expanded by 1.6 mcy compared to Alternative 1, for a total capacity of 10.8 mcy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The use of the disposal ponds and the commercial reuse of dredge spoil dumped into the ponds would generate revenue for the local economy and, thereby, help to offset economic losses due to closure of the base. This would represent a beneficial use of surplus government property. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have less overall capacity than either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, due to the lower heights of the levees, but lower levee heights would reduce the environmental impacts of Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1. As a result, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be caused by Alternative 1. Dredge material disposal operations and removal of dredge spoil for reuse would result in some sedimentation, but the levees would eliminate the probably of a significant long-term impact due to release of particulate matter into surrounding waters on the island or the bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687), 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: 040053, Environmental Analysis--471 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--589 pages and maps, January 30, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Noise Assessments KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Mare Island Naval Facility KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, 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/36360092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REUSE+OF+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+PONDS%2C+CITY+OF+VALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REUSE+OF+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+PONDS%2C+CITY+OF+VALLEJO%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: January 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - REUSE OF MARE ISLAND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL PONDS, CITY OF VALLEJO, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16354706; 10607 AB - PURPOSE: The commercial use of disposal ponds on Mare Island for the disposition of material dredged from the San Francisco Bay area of California is proposed. Mare Island is the location of the former Mare Island Naval Facility, which closed on April 1, 1996. The island is located in the northern portion of San Francisco Bay within the city of Vallejo. The Mare Island disposal ponds have been identified in San Francisco Bay's Long Term Management Strategy planning documents as a candidate site for upland placement of dredged material. WESTON Solutions, Inc., proposes the use of seven of the 10 existing disposal ponds on Mare Island for the disposal of material dredged from projects throughout the bay area. The ponds would be operated as commercial storage area available for the disposal of dredged material by various public and private operators. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative of the city of Vallejo (Alternative 1) would involve placement of regional dredged material in Ponds 2N, 2M, 2S, 4N, 4M, and 4S, which are contiguous, as well as Pond 7. The pond levees would be raised over time to final elevations ranging from 20 to 38 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD) of 1929, achieving a disposal capacity of 9.3 million cubic yards (mcy). These elevations would not represent the maximum geotechnically feasible heights. Alternative 2 would involve the use of the same seven ponds as Alternative 1, but the levee would be raised to final elevations of between 34 feet and 38 feet NGVD. These elevations would represent the maximum geotechnically feasible heights. Capacity of the disposal facility would be expanded by 2.4 mcy compared to Alternative 1, for a total capacity of 11.7 mcy. Alternative 3 would involve the use of only the six contiguous ponds. Levees would be raised to the maximum heights that are geotechnically feasible, as under Alternative 2. The capacity of the disposal facility would be expanded by 1.6 mcy compared to Alternative 1, for a total capacity of 10.8 mcy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The use of the disposal ponds and the commercial reuse of dredge spoil dumped into the ponds would generate revenue for the local economy and, thereby, help to offset economic losses due to closure of the base. This would represent a beneficial use of surplus government property. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would have less overall capacity than either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, due to the lower heights of the levees, but lower levee heights would reduce the environmental impacts of Alternative 2 as compared to Alternative 1. As a result, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would be caused by Alternative 1. Dredge material disposal operations and removal of dredge spoil for reuse would result in some sedimentation, but the levees would eliminate the probably of a significant long-term impact due to release of particulate matter into surrounding waters on the island or the bay. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687), 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: 040053, Environmental Analysis--471 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--589 pages and maps, January 30, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Wastes KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Noise Assessments KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Mare Island Naval Facility KW - San Francisco Bay KW - Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, 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/16354706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=REUSE+OF+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+PONDS%2C+CITY+OF+VALLEJO%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=REUSE+OF+MARE+ISLAND+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+PONDS%2C+CITY+OF+VALLEJO%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: January 30, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36429585; 10601 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36429585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36359571; 10601-040047_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36359471; 10601-040047_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36359324; 10601-040047_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36355141; 10601-040047_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354588; 10601-040047_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354434; 10601-040047_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354349; 10601-040047_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 6 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354240; 10601-040047_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354240?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354088; 10601-040047_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354088?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36354009; 10601-040047_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRALIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON: GENERAL RE-EVALUATION STUDY. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CENTRALIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON: GENERAL RE-EVALUATION STUDY. AN - 36352007; 10603-040049_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The redesign of a flood control project to protect the cities of Centralia and Chehalis in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington is proposed. The cities of Centralia and Chehalis have been subject to flooding for many years. This flooding has caused extensive damage to private and public property and required periodic closure of critical transportation routes, resulting in significant economic losses. In addition, stream habitat functions of the Chehalis River and its tributaries have been damages in the past due to development throughout much of the Chehalis Basin. The loss of wetlands, riparian areas, and back channels has contributed to increased flooding. Prior to the study included in this final EIS, a preconstruction and engineering design study was conducted from February 1988 through August 1990. Negotiations were undertaken with the Skookumcuck Dam operator, PacifiCorp, to identify the maximum amount of flood storage the operator would agree to provide at the reservoir; this storage amounted to 12,000 acre-feet. Work on the project was suspended after studies indicated that the recommended plan lacked economic justification. Another preliminary plan was developed after a 1996 flood event, but this was rejected on legal grounds. Subsequently, local and state funds were used to conduct an investigation into modification of the earlier plan. In July 1998, Lewis County requested that work be restarted on preconstruction and engineering design. On the basis of that work and subsequent considerations, seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, a combination of Alternatives 2 and 4, would result in modifications of the Skookumcuck Dam to increase the reservoir's flood storage capacity and the construction of a levee/floodwall system along the Chehalis and Skookuncuck rivers. Approximately 14 miles of levee and one mile of floodwall would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide the two affected cities and surrounding areas in Lewis and Thurston counties with 100-year flood protection and provide habitat enhancement opportunities for fish and wildlife. The use of setback levees would provide opportunities for the river to overflow its banks and this situation could result in the restoration of riparian habitat along the river's banks. Modifications to the Skookumchunk Dam would allow floodwater storage of up to 492 feet or 20,000 acre feet of water for a period not to exceed five days, providing some flood reduction along the river. The greatest protection from dam modification would occur between 50- and 100-year flood flows. The re-operation plan associated with the modification of the dam would ensure that a fishery and/or fishery habitat flow would be maintained during all events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee construction would affect 34 acres of wetlands. Further studies will be undertaken to determine the effect of the project on streambed load and sediment movement within the river. The project could affect the winter steelhead trout population unless a proposed trap and haul operation was successful. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Flood Control Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0467D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040049, Final EIS (Part 1)--272 pages, Final EIS (Part II)--231 pages, General Reevaluation Report--190 pages and maps, CD-ROM, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Chehalis River KW - Skookumcuck River KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRALIA+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CHEHALIS+RIVER%2C+LEWIS+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON%3A+GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+STUDY.&rft.title=CENTRALIA+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CHEHALIS+RIVER%2C+LEWIS+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON%3A+GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+STUDY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36351982; 10601-040047_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36351892; 10601-040047_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351892?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36351878; 10601-040047_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351878?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36351624; 10601-040047_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351624?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350786; 10601-040047_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350704; 10601-040047_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350704?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350612; 10601-040047_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350450; 10601-040047_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36350123; 10601-040047_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRALIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON: GENERAL RE-EVALUATION STUDY. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CENTRALIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON: GENERAL RE-EVALUATION STUDY. AN - 36349442; 10603-040049_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The redesign of a flood control project to protect the cities of Centralia and Chehalis in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington is proposed. The cities of Centralia and Chehalis have been subject to flooding for many years. This flooding has caused extensive damage to private and public property and required periodic closure of critical transportation routes, resulting in significant economic losses. In addition, stream habitat functions of the Chehalis River and its tributaries have been damages in the past due to development throughout much of the Chehalis Basin. The loss of wetlands, riparian areas, and back channels has contributed to increased flooding. Prior to the study included in this final EIS, a preconstruction and engineering design study was conducted from February 1988 through August 1990. Negotiations were undertaken with the Skookumcuck Dam operator, PacifiCorp, to identify the maximum amount of flood storage the operator would agree to provide at the reservoir; this storage amounted to 12,000 acre-feet. Work on the project was suspended after studies indicated that the recommended plan lacked economic justification. Another preliminary plan was developed after a 1996 flood event, but this was rejected on legal grounds. Subsequently, local and state funds were used to conduct an investigation into modification of the earlier plan. In July 1998, Lewis County requested that work be restarted on preconstruction and engineering design. On the basis of that work and subsequent considerations, seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, a combination of Alternatives 2 and 4, would result in modifications of the Skookumcuck Dam to increase the reservoir's flood storage capacity and the construction of a levee/floodwall system along the Chehalis and Skookuncuck rivers. Approximately 14 miles of levee and one mile of floodwall would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide the two affected cities and surrounding areas in Lewis and Thurston counties with 100-year flood protection and provide habitat enhancement opportunities for fish and wildlife. The use of setback levees would provide opportunities for the river to overflow its banks and this situation could result in the restoration of riparian habitat along the river's banks. Modifications to the Skookumchunk Dam would allow floodwater storage of up to 492 feet or 20,000 acre feet of water for a period not to exceed five days, providing some flood reduction along the river. The greatest protection from dam modification would occur between 50- and 100-year flood flows. The re-operation plan associated with the modification of the dam would ensure that a fishery and/or fishery habitat flow would be maintained during all events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee construction would affect 34 acres of wetlands. Further studies will be undertaken to determine the effect of the project on streambed load and sediment movement within the river. The project could affect the winter steelhead trout population unless a proposed trap and haul operation was successful. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Flood Control Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0467D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040049, Final EIS (Part 1)--272 pages, Final EIS (Part II)--231 pages, General Reevaluation Report--190 pages and maps, CD-ROM, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Chehalis River KW - Skookumcuck River KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRALIA+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CHEHALIS+RIVER%2C+LEWIS+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON%3A+GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+STUDY.&rft.title=CENTRALIA+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CHEHALIS+RIVER%2C+LEWIS+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON%3A+GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+STUDY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36349368; 10601-040047_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36349296; 10601-040047_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36349212; 10601-040047_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - I-94/TH 10 INTERNATIONAL CONNECTION, FROM WEST OF BECKER, TO EAST OF ST. CLOUD, SHERBURNE, STEARNS, AND WRIGHT COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36349134; 10601-040047_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of capacity improvements to the interregional corridor connection between Interstate 94 (I-94) and Trunk Highway (TH) 10 within an area west of the city of Becker and east of the city of St. Cloud in Sherburne, Stearns, and Wright counties, Minnesota is proposed. The connection between I-94 and TH 10 is currently provided by TH 24, a two-lane, uncontrolled access roadway that passes through the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, with an at-grade crossing at the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad just south of TH 10. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All build alternatives include construction of a four-lane freeway, with a grade separation at the BNSF rail crossing and a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The project would include provisions for an existing snowmobile trail within an abandoned railroad corridor adjacent to County State Aid Highway 75 and for accommodations for future extension of the Beaver Island Regional Trail on the new bridge. Cost estimates for the build alternatives range from $105.2 million to $112.7 million. Total costs, including cost of the interregional connector and cost of regional system improvements, range from $195.3 million to $223.4 million, and the overall cost-benefit ratios range from 6.3 to 26.5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The connector would remove traffic from the cities of Clearwater and Clear Lake, separating local and through vehicle flows to improve long-distance travel while reducing urban congestion. Provision of controlled access to the facility would eliminate conflicts with crossing traffic, thereby reducing the accident rate along the corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to 13 commercial, seven industrial properties, and nine agricultural properties. Twelve to 162 acres of farmland would be lost. Traffic-generated noise and visible structures could impact on the quality of user experience on the Mississippi Scenic Riverway and Canoe/Boating Route, and the facility could impeded access to several recreational sites in the area; noise levels within the corridor would generally rise. Woodland wildlife habitat, meadow, sedge, wetland, and/or floodplain would be displaced. Federally protected or state-protected wildlife species, including Blandings turtle, loggerhead shrike, and/or bald eagle could be affected, and the removal of the TH 24 bridge under one alternative could decrease habitat for migratory avian species. Property acquisitions related to rights-of-way development would reduce the tax base by $9,000 to $198,000. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040047, 401 pages and maps, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-04-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=I-94%2FTH+10+INTERNATIONAL+CONNECTION%2C+FROM+WEST+OF+BECKER%2C+TO+EAST+OF+ST.+CLOUD%2C+SHERBURNE%2C+STEARNS%2C+AND+WRIGHT+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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRALIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON: GENERAL RE-EVALUATION STUDY. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CENTRALIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, CHEHALIS RIVER, LEWIS AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON: GENERAL RE-EVALUATION STUDY. AN - 36348359; 10603-040049_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The redesign of a flood control project to protect the cities of Centralia and Chehalis in Lewis and Thurston counties, Washington is proposed. The cities of Centralia and Chehalis have been subject to flooding for many years. This flooding has caused extensive damage to private and public property and required periodic closure of critical transportation routes, resulting in significant economic losses. In addition, stream habitat functions of the Chehalis River and its tributaries have been damages in the past due to development throughout much of the Chehalis Basin. The loss of wetlands, riparian areas, and back channels has contributed to increased flooding. Prior to the study included in this final EIS, a preconstruction and engineering design study was conducted from February 1988 through August 1990. Negotiations were undertaken with the Skookumcuck Dam operator, PacifiCorp, to identify the maximum amount of flood storage the operator would agree to provide at the reservoir; this storage amounted to 12,000 acre-feet. Work on the project was suspended after studies indicated that the recommended plan lacked economic justification. Another preliminary plan was developed after a 1996 flood event, but this was rejected on legal grounds. Subsequently, local and state funds were used to conduct an investigation into modification of the earlier plan. In July 1998, Lewis County requested that work be restarted on preconstruction and engineering design. On the basis of that work and subsequent considerations, seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative, a combination of Alternatives 2 and 4, would result in modifications of the Skookumcuck Dam to increase the reservoir's flood storage capacity and the construction of a levee/floodwall system along the Chehalis and Skookuncuck rivers. Approximately 14 miles of levee and one mile of floodwall would be provided. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide the two affected cities and surrounding areas in Lewis and Thurston counties with 100-year flood protection and provide habitat enhancement opportunities for fish and wildlife. The use of setback levees would provide opportunities for the river to overflow its banks and this situation could result in the restoration of riparian habitat along the river's banks. Modifications to the Skookumchunk Dam would allow floodwater storage of up to 492 feet or 20,000 acre feet of water for a period not to exceed five days, providing some flood reduction along the river. The greatest protection from dam modification would occur between 50- and 100-year flood flows. The re-operation plan associated with the modification of the dam would ensure that a fishery and/or fishery habitat flow would be maintained during all events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Levee construction would affect 34 acres of wetlands. Further studies will be undertaken to determine the effect of the project on streambed load and sediment movement within the river. The project could affect the winter steelhead trout population unless a proposed trap and haul operation was successful. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Flood Control Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0467D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 040049, Final EIS (Part 1)--272 pages, Final EIS (Part II)--231 pages, General Reevaluation Report--190 pages and maps, CD-ROM, January 29, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Chehalis River KW - Skookumcuck River KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRALIA+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CHEHALIS+RIVER%2C+LEWIS+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON%3A+GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+STUDY.&rft.title=CENTRALIA+FLOOD+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+CHEHALIS+RIVER%2C+LEWIS+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON%3A+GENERAL+RE-EVALUATION+STUDY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Washington; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 29, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36435287; 10599 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12-mile section of highway (State Highway (SH) 99) on a new location from SH 249 to Interstate 45 (I-45), Harris and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The study area encompassees the northwest quadrant of the planned 170-mile third loop of SH 99 around Houston, to be known as the Grand Parkway. More specifically, the study area is bounded by SH 249 to the west I-45 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and the area just behind the proposed Grand Parkway to the north. The conceptual design for the facility would provide for a four-lane, at-grade, controlled access freeway within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The recommended alternative is comprised of a combination of alignments investigated during the study, and was proposed after the evaluation of alternative corridors, alternative transportation modes, and alternative alignments within corridors. Five alignment alternative are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative, a combination of three alternatives, is estimated at $109.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. The freeway would reduce the through radial traffic on the current freeway system and would provide a needed transportation service in the study area to help reduce regional and local traffic congestion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 22 residences, tree businesses, 2.1 acres within special resource areas, 62.5 acres of aquatic habitat, 243.7 acres of prime farmland, 156,4 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and four historic sites that could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The project would traverse 471 acres with a high probability of cultural resource sites, as well as five oil and gas wells and one hazardous waste site. Highway structures would visually impact the corridor and adjacent lands. 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.), Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040045, Volumes I & II--715 pages and maps, Volume III--422 pages and maps, January 27, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-02-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36435287?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36354535; 10599-040045_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12-mile section of highway (State Highway (SH) 99) on a new location from SH 249 to Interstate 45 (I-45), Harris and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The study area encompassees the northwest quadrant of the planned 170-mile third loop of SH 99 around Houston, to be known as the Grand Parkway. More specifically, the study area is bounded by SH 249 to the west I-45 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and the area just behind the proposed Grand Parkway to the north. The conceptual design for the facility would provide for a four-lane, at-grade, controlled access freeway within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The recommended alternative is comprised of a combination of alignments investigated during the study, and was proposed after the evaluation of alternative corridors, alternative transportation modes, and alternative alignments within corridors. Five alignment alternative are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative, a combination of three alternatives, is estimated at $109.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. The freeway would reduce the through radial traffic on the current freeway system and would provide a needed transportation service in the study area to help reduce regional and local traffic congestion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 22 residences, tree businesses, 2.1 acres within special resource areas, 62.5 acres of aquatic habitat, 243.7 acres of prime farmland, 156,4 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and four historic sites that could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The project would traverse 471 acres with a high probability of cultural resource sites, as well as five oil and gas wells and one hazardous waste site. Highway structures would visually impact the corridor and adjacent lands. 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.), Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040045, Volumes I & II--715 pages and maps, Volume III--422 pages and maps, January 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-02-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY (STATE HIGHWAY 99) SEGMENT F-2, FROM SH 249 TO IH 45, HARRIS, MONTGOMERY, LIBERTY, CHAMBERS, GALVESTON, BRAZORIA, AND FORT BEND COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36350183; 10599-040045_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12-mile section of highway (State Highway (SH) 99) on a new location from SH 249 to Interstate 45 (I-45), Harris and Chambers counties, Texas is proposed. The study area encompassees the northwest quadrant of the planned 170-mile third loop of SH 99 around Houston, to be known as the Grand Parkway. More specifically, the study area is bounded by SH 249 to the west I-45 to the east, Farm-to-Market 1960 to the south, and the area just behind the proposed Grand Parkway to the north. The conceptual design for the facility would provide for a four-lane, at-grade, controlled access freeway within a 400-foot rights-of-way. The recommended alternative is comprised of a combination of alignments investigated during the study, and was proposed after the evaluation of alternative corridors, alternative transportation modes, and alternative alignments within corridors. Five alignment alternative are considered in detail in this draft EIS. Estimated cost of the recommended alternative, a combination of three alternatives, is estimated at $109.4 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility would improve access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. The freeway would reduce the through radial traffic on the current freeway system and would provide a needed transportation service in the study area to help reduce regional and local traffic congestion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 22 residences, tree businesses, 2.1 acres within special resource areas, 62.5 acres of aquatic habitat, 243.7 acres of prime farmland, 156,4 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and four historic sites that could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The project would traverse 471 acres with a high probability of cultural resource sites, as well as five oil and gas wells and one hazardous waste site. Highway structures would visually impact the corridor and adjacent lands. 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.), Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 040045, Volumes I & II--715 pages and maps, Volume III--422 pages and maps, January 27, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-02-D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY+%28STATE+HIGHWAY+99%29+SEGMENT+F-2%2C+FROM+SH+249+TO+IH+45%2C+HARRIS%2C+MONTGOMERY%2C+LIBERTY%2C+CHAMBERS%2C+GALVESTON%2C+BRAZORIA%2C+AND+FORT+BEND+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRACTEBEL CALYPSO PIPELINE PROJECT, FREEPORT, BAHAMAS TO FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. AN - 36433255; 10591 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline and associated aboveground facilities to transport gas from a point near Freeport in the Bahamas to a point near Fort Lauderdale, Florida are proposed. The pipeline system would transport 832,000 dekatherms (832 million cubic feet) per day of natural gas to new markets in south Florida. The southeastern Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The south Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The facilities would provide for a 90-mile pipeline system extending from a liquefied natural gas import/export terminal near Freeport to a receipt point near Fort Lauderdale. The portion of the pipeline under US jurisdiction and, therefore, addressed in this EIS, would extend 36 miles from the US/Bahama Exclusive Economic Zone boundary to a shore approach near Port Everglades in Broward County. The pipeline would then proceed 6.5 miles overland to an interconnect with the Florida Gas Transmission Company's Lauderdale Lateral Pipeline near the Florida Power and Light's (FPL) Fort Lauderdale Power Plant. The jurisdictional portion of this project would also include construction and operation of two block valves and one meter and pressure regulation station/block valve. This draft EIS also considers a No Action Alternative, project system alternatives, pipeline route alternatives, and route variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would provided much needed natural gas capacity and supply to meet the needs of FPL in south Florida, allowing FPL to satisfy the electric power demand of its end-users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project facilities would require setting aside approximately 900 acres, more than 800 acres of which would be associated with the 200-foot-wide rights-of-way typically authorized for offshore pipelines at depths of greater than 200 feet. The actual area of deepwater disturbance would be limited to the footprint of the 24-inch-diameter pipeline. Construction of the shallower portion of the pipeline in marine waters would affect approximately 7.2 acres extending from the shoreline to a depth of 200 feet. Long-term impacts in the nearshore habitat would affect less than 0.3 acre of live bottom habitat. Construction of onshore facilities would affect 72.7 acres of land in Broward County, Florida; of this affected area, 43.7 acres would be impacted by activities within the pipeline rights-of-way, 1.6 acres by construction of aboveground facilities, and 27.4 acres by extra workspaces, pipeline storage yards, and contractor yards. Permanent onshore impact would affect 7.9 acres. A total of 24 commercial structures would lie within 50 feet of the construction rights-of-way. Four waterbodies would be crossed, including two major waterbodies and two minor waterboeies. Construction activities would disturb less than 0.1 acre of wetland vegetation; there would be no permanent wetland impacts. Small areas of nearshore marine habitat would be impacted. Essential fish habitat, including coral reef, seagrass, and estuarine habitat, could be affected. Five state-listed protected species could be affected. Cultural resource surveys have been conducted along the pipeline route, and construction would be deferred until all the results of these surveys and the related mitigation plans, if any, were forwarded. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0007D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040036, 598 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/FEIS-0163F KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - International Programs KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reefs KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36433255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRACTEBEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=TRACTEBEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&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: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36359250; 10590-040035_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. 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.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36359250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36354275; 10590-040035_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. 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.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354275?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36354196; 10590-040035_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. 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.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36351807; 10590-040035_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. 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.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRACTEBEL CALYPSO PIPELINE PROJECT, FREEPORT, BAHAMAS TO FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - TRACTEBEL CALYPSO PIPELINE PROJECT, FREEPORT, BAHAMAS TO FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. AN - 36350543; 10591-040036_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline and associated aboveground facilities to transport gas from a point near Freeport in the Bahamas to a point near Fort Lauderdale, Florida are proposed. The pipeline system would transport 832,000 dekatherms (832 million cubic feet) per day of natural gas to new markets in south Florida. The southeastern Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The south Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The facilities would provide for a 90-mile pipeline system extending from a liquefied natural gas import/export terminal near Freeport to a receipt point near Fort Lauderdale. The portion of the pipeline under US jurisdiction and, therefore, addressed in this EIS, would extend 36 miles from the US/Bahama Exclusive Economic Zone boundary to a shore approach near Port Everglades in Broward County. The pipeline would then proceed 6.5 miles overland to an interconnect with the Florida Gas Transmission Company's Lauderdale Lateral Pipeline near the Florida Power and Light's (FPL) Fort Lauderdale Power Plant. The jurisdictional portion of this project would also include construction and operation of two block valves and one meter and pressure regulation station/block valve. This draft EIS also considers a No Action Alternative, project system alternatives, pipeline route alternatives, and route variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would provided much needed natural gas capacity and supply to meet the needs of FPL in south Florida, allowing FPL to satisfy the electric power demand of its end-users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project facilities would require setting aside approximately 900 acres, more than 800 acres of which would be associated with the 200-foot-wide rights-of-way typically authorized for offshore pipelines at depths of greater than 200 feet. The actual area of deepwater disturbance would be limited to the footprint of the 24-inch-diameter pipeline. Construction of the shallower portion of the pipeline in marine waters would affect approximately 7.2 acres extending from the shoreline to a depth of 200 feet. Long-term impacts in the nearshore habitat would affect less than 0.3 acre of live bottom habitat. Construction of onshore facilities would affect 72.7 acres of land in Broward County, Florida; of this affected area, 43.7 acres would be impacted by activities within the pipeline rights-of-way, 1.6 acres by construction of aboveground facilities, and 27.4 acres by extra workspaces, pipeline storage yards, and contractor yards. Permanent onshore impact would affect 7.9 acres. A total of 24 commercial structures would lie within 50 feet of the construction rights-of-way. Four waterbodies would be crossed, including two major waterbodies and two minor waterboeies. Construction activities would disturb less than 0.1 acre of wetland vegetation; there would be no permanent wetland impacts. Small areas of nearshore marine habitat would be impacted. Essential fish habitat, including coral reef, seagrass, and estuarine habitat, could be affected. Five state-listed protected species could be affected. Cultural resource surveys have been conducted along the pipeline route, and construction would be deferred until all the results of these surveys and the related mitigation plans, if any, were forwarded. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0007D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040036, 598 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/FEIS-0163F KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - International Programs KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reefs KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350543?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRACTEBEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=TRACTEBEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&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: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36350506; 10590-040035_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. 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.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36350271; 10590-040035_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. 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.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - MON/FAYETTE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, PA ROUTE 51 TO I-376, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36349277; 10590-040035_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project, a four-lane, limited access, tolled expressway extending 24 miles from Pennsylvania Route 51 (PA 51) to Interstate 376 (Parkway East; I-376) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is proposed. The project is one of four being considered to develop a program of transportation improvement projects along a 65-mile corridor between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Morgantown, West Virginia. The project at hand would involve construction of a tolled expressway between Jefferson Hills and Parkway East at Monroeville and Pittsburgh. The total number of vehicle trips in southwestern Pennsylvania grew by 12 percent from 1990 to 1997 and estimates indicate that vehicle trip numbers will grow 22 percent from 1997 to 2025. The existing roadway suffers from poor pavement conditions, insufficient capacity, and a poor safety record. Three alternatives, including two new alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Both action alternatives would begin near Large at the terminus of the Mon /Fayette Expressway (I-70), extend north to the Monogahela River in Duquesne, cross the river, and extend north to a connection with I-376 near Monroeville. After crossing the river, the North Shore Alternative would extend westward to Pittsburgh parallel to the north shore of the river. The South Shore Alternative would extend westward paralleling the south shore of the river and crossing over to the north shore river to connect with I-376. Estimated construction costs for the North Shore and South Shore alternatives are $1.886 billion and $2.488 billion, respectively. The North Shore Alternative has been identified as the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a modern transportation facility that would ensure the efficient movement of goods and services through the area; improve the safety of motorists, expand job opportunities by providing enhanced access to employment centers, and improve access to social services and accessibility for emergency service vehicles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for either action alternative would result in the displacement of residences, businesses and community facilities. The project would affect several parks and other recreational areas, numerous sites and districts listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as railroads eligible or listed railroads. Railroad relocations would be necessary. The highway would traverse extensive areas likely to contain archaeological resource sites. The project would affect wetlands; cross perennial streams, requiring stream relocations; and traverse floodplains, forest, rangeland, agricultural land, and hazardous waste sites. Habitat for endangered species would be affected. Some moderately valuable coal seams could be removed from possible production. 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.), General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), 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 02-0327D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040035, Volume 1--267 pages, Volume 667 pages, Volume 3--Map Supplement, Volume 4--321 pages, Volume 5--367 pages, Volume 6--1,012 pages, 278 pages, January 23, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Coal KW - Cost Assessments KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Ranges KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=MON%2FFAYETTE+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+PA+ROUTE+51+TO+I-376%2C+ALLEGHENY+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 23, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). [Part 4 of 4] T2 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). AN - 36358554; 10576-040020_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Development and operation of an underground gold mine are proposed in the Chatham Area of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska. The project area is found in the north end of the Juneau Gold Belt. The mine site would be located on the west side of the Kakuhan Range adjacent to Lynn Canal, approximately 45 air miles north-northwest of Juneau and 35 air miles south of Haines, Alaska. The proposed action would consist of an underground gold mine, ore processing facility, tailing impoundment, office and maintenance complex, employee camp, heliports, marine terminal, explosives magazine, and miscellaneous support areas. The project, to be known as the Kensington Project, was originally a joint venture between Coeur Alaska Inc. (a subsidiary of Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation) and Echo Bay Exploration, Inc. (a subsidiary of Echo Bay Mines Ltd.). In the summer of 1994, Coeur Alaska assumed a 100 percent interest in the project, and in the following year, presented a revised plan that was the subject of a February 1997 final supplement to the final EIS of February 1992. The revised plan would reduce the potential impacts from a mixing zone in marine waters, increase the assurance of meeting water quality standards, improve the operational efficiency of the mine, and minimize the potential impacts to Ophir, Ivanhoe, and Sherman creeks. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final supplement of February 1997. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative D), significant modifications would include offsite processing of flotation concentrate and the piping of tailings from the process area to the dry tailings facility. Flotation concentrate would be placed in sealed containers and transported offsite for final processing. An engineered structural berm would be built around all cells of the DTF to enhance geotechnical stability. Mine drainage would be filtered and combined with process area runoff in a sediment pond that would discharge into upper Sherman Creek. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses means of improving the efficiency of the operation and reducing the extent of disturbance resulting from mining. The newly proposed plans proposes a number of changes in the approved plan, including changing the location of the processing facilities, tailings disposal site, and site access and employing different means of transportation. The operation would also mine a smaller portion of the ore body containing a higher average gold concentration than proposed under previous iterations and use a dock to be constructed at Cascade Point on property ?helf by Goldbelt Incorporated, an Alaska Native corporation. Four alternatives, including the refined proposal by the applicant and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gold produced by the mine would increase the nation's supply of this precious strategic metal. During the operational phase, mining activities would employ 225 persons during full production, and the mine would generally enhance economic indicators locally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining and associated activities under the applicant's new proposal would disturb up to 187 acres of vegetation, including 92 acres of wetland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction activities would temporarily increase sediment levels in local streams. The newly proposed design would divert 1,500 feet of stream. Water withdrawals from the streams would significantly reduce flows, and flow reductions would degrade fishery quality for anadromous fish. Seismic activity and seiche landslides could affect the mine site. Site activities, helicopter flights, and activities at the Berners Bay terminal would generate significant noise levels. 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 General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0146D, Volume 15, Number 3, and 92-0014F, Volume 16, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplement pair, see 97-0023D, Volume 21, Number 1 and 97-0319F, Volume 21, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040020, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--181 pages, January 16, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Fisheries KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36358554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.title=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). [Part 3 of 4] T2 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). AN - 36353857; 10576-040020_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Development and operation of an underground gold mine are proposed in the Chatham Area of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska. The project area is found in the north end of the Juneau Gold Belt. The mine site would be located on the west side of the Kakuhan Range adjacent to Lynn Canal, approximately 45 air miles north-northwest of Juneau and 35 air miles south of Haines, Alaska. The proposed action would consist of an underground gold mine, ore processing facility, tailing impoundment, office and maintenance complex, employee camp, heliports, marine terminal, explosives magazine, and miscellaneous support areas. The project, to be known as the Kensington Project, was originally a joint venture between Coeur Alaska Inc. (a subsidiary of Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation) and Echo Bay Exploration, Inc. (a subsidiary of Echo Bay Mines Ltd.). In the summer of 1994, Coeur Alaska assumed a 100 percent interest in the project, and in the following year, presented a revised plan that was the subject of a February 1997 final supplement to the final EIS of February 1992. The revised plan would reduce the potential impacts from a mixing zone in marine waters, increase the assurance of meeting water quality standards, improve the operational efficiency of the mine, and minimize the potential impacts to Ophir, Ivanhoe, and Sherman creeks. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final supplement of February 1997. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative D), significant modifications would include offsite processing of flotation concentrate and the piping of tailings from the process area to the dry tailings facility. Flotation concentrate would be placed in sealed containers and transported offsite for final processing. An engineered structural berm would be built around all cells of the DTF to enhance geotechnical stability. Mine drainage would be filtered and combined with process area runoff in a sediment pond that would discharge into upper Sherman Creek. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses means of improving the efficiency of the operation and reducing the extent of disturbance resulting from mining. The newly proposed plans proposes a number of changes in the approved plan, including changing the location of the processing facilities, tailings disposal site, and site access and employing different means of transportation. The operation would also mine a smaller portion of the ore body containing a higher average gold concentration than proposed under previous iterations and use a dock to be constructed at Cascade Point on property ?helf by Goldbelt Incorporated, an Alaska Native corporation. Four alternatives, including the refined proposal by the applicant and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gold produced by the mine would increase the nation's supply of this precious strategic metal. During the operational phase, mining activities would employ 225 persons during full production, and the mine would generally enhance economic indicators locally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining and associated activities under the applicant's new proposal would disturb up to 187 acres of vegetation, including 92 acres of wetland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction activities would temporarily increase sediment levels in local streams. The newly proposed design would divert 1,500 feet of stream. Water withdrawals from the streams would significantly reduce flows, and flow reductions would degrade fishery quality for anadromous fish. Seismic activity and seiche landslides could affect the mine site. Site activities, helicopter flights, and activities at the Berners Bay terminal would generate significant noise levels. 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 General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0146D, Volume 15, Number 3, and 92-0014F, Volume 16, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplement pair, see 97-0023D, Volume 21, Number 1 and 97-0319F, Volume 21, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040020, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--181 pages, January 16, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Fisheries KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.title=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). [Part 1 of 4] T2 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). AN - 36350311; 10576-040020_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Development and operation of an underground gold mine are proposed in the Chatham Area of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska. The project area is found in the north end of the Juneau Gold Belt. The mine site would be located on the west side of the Kakuhan Range adjacent to Lynn Canal, approximately 45 air miles north-northwest of Juneau and 35 air miles south of Haines, Alaska. The proposed action would consist of an underground gold mine, ore processing facility, tailing impoundment, office and maintenance complex, employee camp, heliports, marine terminal, explosives magazine, and miscellaneous support areas. The project, to be known as the Kensington Project, was originally a joint venture between Coeur Alaska Inc. (a subsidiary of Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation) and Echo Bay Exploration, Inc. (a subsidiary of Echo Bay Mines Ltd.). In the summer of 1994, Coeur Alaska assumed a 100 percent interest in the project, and in the following year, presented a revised plan that was the subject of a February 1997 final supplement to the final EIS of February 1992. The revised plan would reduce the potential impacts from a mixing zone in marine waters, increase the assurance of meeting water quality standards, improve the operational efficiency of the mine, and minimize the potential impacts to Ophir, Ivanhoe, and Sherman creeks. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final supplement of February 1997. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative D), significant modifications would include offsite processing of flotation concentrate and the piping of tailings from the process area to the dry tailings facility. Flotation concentrate would be placed in sealed containers and transported offsite for final processing. An engineered structural berm would be built around all cells of the DTF to enhance geotechnical stability. Mine drainage would be filtered and combined with process area runoff in a sediment pond that would discharge into upper Sherman Creek. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses means of improving the efficiency of the operation and reducing the extent of disturbance resulting from mining. The newly proposed plans proposes a number of changes in the approved plan, including changing the location of the processing facilities, tailings disposal site, and site access and employing different means of transportation. The operation would also mine a smaller portion of the ore body containing a higher average gold concentration than proposed under previous iterations and use a dock to be constructed at Cascade Point on property ?helf by Goldbelt Incorporated, an Alaska Native corporation. Four alternatives, including the refined proposal by the applicant and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gold produced by the mine would increase the nation's supply of this precious strategic metal. During the operational phase, mining activities would employ 225 persons during full production, and the mine would generally enhance economic indicators locally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining and associated activities under the applicant's new proposal would disturb up to 187 acres of vegetation, including 92 acres of wetland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction activities would temporarily increase sediment levels in local streams. The newly proposed design would divert 1,500 feet of stream. Water withdrawals from the streams would significantly reduce flows, and flow reductions would degrade fishery quality for anadromous fish. Seismic activity and seiche landslides could affect the mine site. Site activities, helicopter flights, and activities at the Berners Bay terminal would generate significant noise levels. 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 General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0146D, Volume 15, Number 3, and 92-0014F, Volume 16, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplement pair, see 97-0023D, Volume 21, Number 1 and 97-0319F, Volume 21, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040020, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--181 pages, January 16, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Fisheries KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.title=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). [Part 2 of 4] T2 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). AN - 36348123; 10576-040020_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Development and operation of an underground gold mine are proposed in the Chatham Area of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska. The project area is found in the north end of the Juneau Gold Belt. The mine site would be located on the west side of the Kakuhan Range adjacent to Lynn Canal, approximately 45 air miles north-northwest of Juneau and 35 air miles south of Haines, Alaska. The proposed action would consist of an underground gold mine, ore processing facility, tailing impoundment, office and maintenance complex, employee camp, heliports, marine terminal, explosives magazine, and miscellaneous support areas. The project, to be known as the Kensington Project, was originally a joint venture between Coeur Alaska Inc. (a subsidiary of Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation) and Echo Bay Exploration, Inc. (a subsidiary of Echo Bay Mines Ltd.). In the summer of 1994, Coeur Alaska assumed a 100 percent interest in the project, and in the following year, presented a revised plan that was the subject of a February 1997 final supplement to the final EIS of February 1992. The revised plan would reduce the potential impacts from a mixing zone in marine waters, increase the assurance of meeting water quality standards, improve the operational efficiency of the mine, and minimize the potential impacts to Ophir, Ivanhoe, and Sherman creeks. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final supplement of February 1997. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative D), significant modifications would include offsite processing of flotation concentrate and the piping of tailings from the process area to the dry tailings facility. Flotation concentrate would be placed in sealed containers and transported offsite for final processing. An engineered structural berm would be built around all cells of the DTF to enhance geotechnical stability. Mine drainage would be filtered and combined with process area runoff in a sediment pond that would discharge into upper Sherman Creek. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses means of improving the efficiency of the operation and reducing the extent of disturbance resulting from mining. The newly proposed plans proposes a number of changes in the approved plan, including changing the location of the processing facilities, tailings disposal site, and site access and employing different means of transportation. The operation would also mine a smaller portion of the ore body containing a higher average gold concentration than proposed under previous iterations and use a dock to be constructed at Cascade Point on property ?helf by Goldbelt Incorporated, an Alaska Native corporation. Four alternatives, including the refined proposal by the applicant and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gold produced by the mine would increase the nation's supply of this precious strategic metal. During the operational phase, mining activities would employ 225 persons during full production, and the mine would generally enhance economic indicators locally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining and associated activities under the applicant's new proposal would disturb up to 187 acres of vegetation, including 92 acres of wetland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction activities would temporarily increase sediment levels in local streams. The newly proposed design would divert 1,500 feet of stream. Water withdrawals from the streams would significantly reduce flows, and flow reductions would degrade fishery quality for anadromous fish. Seismic activity and seiche landslides could affect the mine site. Site activities, helicopter flights, and activities at the Berners Bay terminal would generate significant noise levels. 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 General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0146D, Volume 15, Number 3, and 92-0014F, Volume 16, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplement pair, see 97-0023D, Volume 21, Number 1 and 97-0319F, Volume 21, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040020, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--181 pages, January 16, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Fisheries KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.title=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KENSINGTON GOLD PROJECT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1992). AN - 16367597; 10576 AB - PURPOSE: Development and operation of an underground gold mine are proposed in the Chatham Area of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska. The project area is found in the north end of the Juneau Gold Belt. The mine site would be located on the west side of the Kakuhan Range adjacent to Lynn Canal, approximately 45 air miles north-northwest of Juneau and 35 air miles south of Haines, Alaska. The proposed action would consist of an underground gold mine, ore processing facility, tailing impoundment, office and maintenance complex, employee camp, heliports, marine terminal, explosives magazine, and miscellaneous support areas. The project, to be known as the Kensington Project, was originally a joint venture between Coeur Alaska Inc. (a subsidiary of Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation) and Echo Bay Exploration, Inc. (a subsidiary of Echo Bay Mines Ltd.). In the summer of 1994, Coeur Alaska assumed a 100 percent interest in the project, and in the following year, presented a revised plan that was the subject of a February 1997 final supplement to the final EIS of February 1992. The revised plan would reduce the potential impacts from a mixing zone in marine waters, increase the assurance of meeting water quality standards, improve the operational efficiency of the mine, and minimize the potential impacts to Ophir, Ivanhoe, and Sherman creeks. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were considered in the final supplement of February 1997. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative D), significant modifications would include offsite processing of flotation concentrate and the piping of tailings from the process area to the dry tailings facility. Flotation concentrate would be placed in sealed containers and transported offsite for final processing. An engineered structural berm would be built around all cells of the DTF to enhance geotechnical stability. Mine drainage would be filtered and combined with process area runoff in a sediment pond that would discharge into upper Sherman Creek. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses means of improving the efficiency of the operation and reducing the extent of disturbance resulting from mining. The newly proposed plans proposes a number of changes in the approved plan, including changing the location of the processing facilities, tailings disposal site, and site access and employing different means of transportation. The operation would also mine a smaller portion of the ore body containing a higher average gold concentration than proposed under previous iterations and use a dock to be constructed at Cascade Point on property ?helf by Goldbelt Incorporated, an Alaska Native corporation. Four alternatives, including the refined proposal by the applicant and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this supplemental EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Gold produced by the mine would increase the nation's supply of this precious strategic metal. During the operational phase, mining activities would employ 225 persons during full production, and the mine would generally enhance economic indicators locally. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining and associated activities under the applicant's new proposal would disturb up to 187 acres of vegetation, including 92 acres of wetland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat. Construction activities would temporarily increase sediment levels in local streams. The newly proposed design would divert 1,500 feet of stream. Water withdrawals from the streams would significantly reduce flows, and flow reductions would degrade fishery quality for anadromous fish. Seismic activity and seiche landslides could affect the mine site. Site activities, helicopter flights, and activities at the Berners Bay terminal would generate significant noise levels. 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 General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 91-0146D, Volume 15, Number 3, and 92-0014F, Volume 16, Number 1, respectively. For the abstracts of a previous draft and final supplement pair, see 97-0023D, Volume 21, Number 1 and 97-0319F, Volume 21, Number 5, respectively. JF - EPA number: 040020, Volume 1--387 pages, Volume 2--181 pages, January 16, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Employment KW - Fisheries KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16367597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.title=KENSINGTON+GOLD+PROJECT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1992%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 16, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 100 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670655; 10559-2_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 100 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 99 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670647; 10559-2_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 99 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 97 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670630; 10559-2_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 97 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 96 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670623; 10559-2_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 96 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 40 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670615; 10559-2_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 39 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670608; 10559-2_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 38 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670599; 10559-2_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 35 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670588; 10559-2_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 34 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670574; 10559-2_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 32 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670554; 10559-2_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 31 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670544; 10559-2_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 30 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670530; 10559-2_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 29 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670519; 10559-2_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 27 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670496; 10559-2_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 25 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670482; 10559-2_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 23 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670469; 10559-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 22 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670461; 10559-2_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 21 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670452; 10559-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670439; 10559-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670429; 10559-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670423; 10559-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670415; 10559-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 102 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670399; 10559-2_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 102 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 101 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670388; 10559-2_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 101 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 62 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670283; 10559-2_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 61 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670278; 10559-2_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 60 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670273; 10559-2_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 59 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670268; 10559-2_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 95 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670082; 10559-2_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 95 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 94 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670078; 10559-2_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 94 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 89 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670067; 10559-2_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 89 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 88 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670062; 10559-2_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 88 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 43 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670051; 10559-2_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 42 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670047; 10559-2_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 41 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670042; 10559-2_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 17 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670037; 10559-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 16 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670032; 10559-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670032?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 15 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670028; 10559-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 14 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670022; 10559-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 13 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670017; 10559-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 12 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670013; 10559-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 11 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670006; 10559-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898670001; 10559-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898670001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669997; 10559-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669997?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669994; 10559-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 105 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669963; 10559-2_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 105 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 104 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669958; 10559-2_0104 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 104 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 103 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669952; 10559-2_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 103 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 92 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669948; 10559-2_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 92 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 91 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669947; 10559-2_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 91 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 90 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669946; 10559-2_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 90 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 37 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669945; 10559-2_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 36 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669944; 10559-2_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 26 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669943; 10559-2_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 20 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669942; 10559-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 19 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669941; 10559-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669941?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 18 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669940; 10559-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 86 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669939; 10559-2_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 86 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 85 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669938; 10559-2_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 85 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 84 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669937; 10559-2_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 84 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 82 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669935; 10559-2_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 82 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 80 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669933; 10559-2_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 80 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 79 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669932; 10559-2_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 79 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 78 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669931; 10559-2_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 78 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 77 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669930; 10559-2_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 77 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 76 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669929; 10559-2_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 76 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 75 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669928; 10559-2_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 75 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 74 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669927; 10559-2_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 74 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 73 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669926; 10559-2_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 73 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 58 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669925; 10559-2_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 57 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669924; 10559-2_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 72 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669923; 10559-2_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 72 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 71 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669922; 10559-2_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 71 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 70 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669921; 10559-2_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 53 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669920; 10559-2_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 69 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669919; 10559-2_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 52 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669918; 10559-2_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 68 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669917; 10559-2_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 51 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669916; 10559-2_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 67 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669915; 10559-2_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 50 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669914; 10559-2_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 66 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669913; 10559-2_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 49 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669912; 10559-2_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 48 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669911; 10559-2_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 65 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669910; 10559-2_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 47 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669909; 10559-2_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 64 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669907; 10559-2_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 56 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669906; 10559-2_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 55 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669905; 10559-2_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 63 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669904; 10559-2_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 54 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669903; 10559-2_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669903?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 44 of 105] T2 - ALPINE SATELLITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 898669893; 10559-2_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of five oil production pads and associated wells, roads, airstrips, pipelines, and power lines in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, Alaska is proposed. The proposed facilities would constitute satellites to the existing Alpine Central Processing Facility. In addition to the proposal of the applicant, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., this draft EIS addresses three 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 waterbodies 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. Power lines would be supported by cable trays placed on the pipeline VSM, except for one power line 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. 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.). JF - EPA number: 040002, Volume 1--987 pages, Volume 2--521 pages and maps, January 8, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Airports KW - Archaeological Sites 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 - 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/898669893?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-08&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 - Draft. Preparation date: January 8, 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Equilibrium-range constant in wind-generated wave spectra AN - 51830246; 2004-052316 JF - Journal of Geophysical Research AU - Resio, Donald T AU - Long, Charles E AU - Vincent, C Linwood Y1 - 2004/01// PY - 2004 DA - January 2004 SP - 14 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 109 IS - C1 SN - 0148-0227, 0148-0227 KW - ocean circulation KW - equilibrium-range constant KW - Bering Sea KW - energy balance KW - tides KW - deep-water environment KW - North Pacific KW - Pacific Ocean KW - ocean waves KW - mathematical methods KW - air-sea interaction KW - Lake George KW - winds KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51830246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Geophysical+Research&rft.atitle=Equilibrium-range+constant+in+wind-generated+wave+spectra&rft.au=Resio%2C+Donald+T%3BLong%2C+Charles+E%3BVincent%2C+C+Linwood&rft.aulast=Resio&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=109&rft.issue=C1&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Geophysical+Research&rft.issn=01480227&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2003JC001788 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/jgr/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 26 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - air-sea interaction; Bering Sea; deep-water environment; energy balance; equilibrium-range constant; Lake George; mathematical methods; North Pacific; ocean circulation; ocean waves; Pacific Ocean; tides; winds DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001788 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrologic and geochemical evaluation of aquifer storage recovery in the Santee Limestone/Black Mingo Aquifer, Charleston, South Carolina, 1998-2002 AN - 51794047; 2004-077104 AB - The hydrologic and geochemical effects of aquifer storage recovery were evaluated to determine the potential for supplying the city of Charleston, South Carolina, with large quantities of potable water during emergencies, such as earthquakes, hurricanes, or hard freezes. An aquifer storage recovery system, including a production well and three observation wells, was installed at a site located on the Charleston peninsula. The focus of this study was the 23.2-meter-thick Tertiary-age carbonate and sand aquifer of the Santee Limestone and the Black Mingo Group, the northernmost equivalent of the Floridan aquifer system. JF - Scientific Investigations Report AU - Petkewich, Matthew D AU - Parkhurst, David L AU - Conlon, Kevin J AU - Campbell, Bruce G AU - Mirecki, June E Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 81 PB - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA KW - United States KW - water storage KW - water quality KW - South Carolina KW - Charleston County South Carolina KW - preferential flow KW - drinking water KW - ground water KW - Cenozoic KW - Charleston South Carolina KW - USGS KW - geochemistry KW - water supply KW - middle Eocene KW - Black Mingo Aquifer KW - pressure KW - Eocene KW - Santee Limestone KW - Paleogene KW - hydrochemistry KW - aquifers KW - models KW - Tertiary KW - transmissivity KW - Black Mingo Group KW - hydraulic conductivity KW - water wells KW - 02B:Hydrochemistry KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51794047?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=Petkewich%2C+Matthew+D%3BParkhurst%2C+David+L%3BConlon%2C+Kevin+J%3BCampbell%2C+Bruce+G%3BMirecki%2C+June+E&rft.aulast=Petkewich&rft.aufirst=Matthew&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrologic+and+geochemical+evaluation+of+aquifer+storage+recovery+in+the+Santee+Limestone%2FBlack+Mingo+Aquifer%2C+Charleston%2C+South+Carolina%2C+1998-2002&rft.title=Hydrologic+and+geochemical+evaluation+of+aquifer+storage+recovery+in+the+Santee+Limestone%2FBlack+Mingo+Aquifer%2C+Charleston%2C+South+Carolina%2C+1998-2002&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/sir/2004/5046/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 49 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 8 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Oct. 5, 2004; includes appendices; Prepared in cooperation with the Charleston Commissioners of Public Works N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06439 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; Black Mingo Aquifer; Black Mingo Group; Cenozoic; Charleston County South Carolina; Charleston South Carolina; drinking water; Eocene; geochemistry; ground water; hydraulic conductivity; hydrochemistry; middle Eocene; models; Paleogene; preferential flow; pressure; Santee Limestone; South Carolina; Tertiary; transmissivity; United States; USGS; water quality; water storage; water supply; water wells ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Insights into 1D localisation theory and micromechanical constitutive laws AN - 51780155; 2004-083900 JF - Geotechnique AU - Tordesillas, A AU - Peters, J F AU - Gardiner, B S Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 327 EP - 330 PB - Institution of Civil Engineers, London VL - 54 IS - 5 SN - 0016-8505, 0016-8505 KW - soils KW - soil mechanics KW - theoretical studies KW - localization KW - strain KW - shear stress KW - one-dimensional models KW - mechanical properties KW - fabric KW - deformation KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51780155?accountid=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=Geotechnique&rft.atitle=Insights+into+1D+localisation+theory+and+micromechanical+constitutive+laws&rft.au=Tordesillas%2C+A%3BPeters%2C+J+F%3BGardiner%2C+B+S&rft.aulast=Tordesillas&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=327&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geotechnique&rft.issn=00168505&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.thomastelford.com/journals/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from PASCAL, Institute de l'Information Scientifique et Technique, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 24 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GTNQA8 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - deformation; fabric; localization; mechanical properties; one-dimensional models; shear stress; soil mechanics; soils; strain; theoretical studies ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Evaluation of the contamination by explosives and metals at Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (CLAWR) AN - 51771362; 2005-002403 JF - Sustainable range management AU - Ampleman, Guy AU - Thiboutot, Sonia AU - Lewis, J AU - Marois, A AU - Gagnon, A AU - Bouchard, M AU - Jean, S AU - Jenkins, T F AU - Hewitt, A D AU - Ranney, T A AU - Pennington, Judith C A2 - Alleman, Bruce C. A2 - Downes, Steven Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 PB - Battelle Press, Columbus, OH SN - 1574771442 KW - soils KW - Cold Lake KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - environmental analysis KW - Alberta KW - remediation KW - environmental management KW - mitigation KW - military geology KW - explosives KW - Canada KW - conservation KW - land management KW - Western Canada KW - military facilities KW - Cold Lake Air Weapons Range KW - heavy metals KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51771362?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=Ampleman%2C+Guy%3BThiboutot%2C+Sonia%3BLewis%2C+J%3BMarois%2C+A%3BGagnon%2C+A%3BBouchard%2C+M%3BJean%2C+S%3BJenkins%2C+T+F%3BHewitt%2C+A+D%3BRanney%2C+T+A%3BPennington%2C+Judith+C&rft.aulast=Ampleman&rft.aufirst=Guy&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=1574771442&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+the+contamination+by+explosives+and+metals+at+Cold+Lake+Air+Weapons+Range+%28CLAWR%29&rft.title=Evaluation+of+the+contamination+by+explosives+and+metals+at+Cold+Lake+Air+Weapons+Range+%28CLAWR%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Sustainable range management N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - PubXState - OH N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Surface geophysical investigation of the areal and vertical extent of metallic waste at the former Tyson Valley Powder Farm near Eureka, Missouri, spring 2004 AN - 51768427; 2005-004782 AB - The former Tyson Valley Powder Farm near Eureka, Missouri, was used primarily as a storage facility for the production of small arms ammunition during 1941-47 and 1951-61. A secondary use of the site was for munitions testing and disposal. Little historical information exists describing disposal practices, and more debris is believed to be buried in the subsurface. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has identified several areas of concern throughout the former Tyson Valley Powder Farm. A surface-geophysical investigation was performed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to evaluate the areal and vertical extent of metallic debris in the subsurface within three of these areas of concern. JF - Scientific Investigations Report AU - Ball, Lyndsay B AU - Kress, Wade H AU - Anderson, Eric D AU - Teeple, Andrew P AU - Ferguson, James W AU - Colbert, Charles R Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 56 PB - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA KW - United States KW - soils KW - Saint Louis County Missouri KW - geophysical surveys KW - Tyson Valley Powder Farm KW - pollutants KW - Missouri KW - geophysical methods KW - pollution KW - magnetic anomalies KW - mapping KW - resistivity KW - two-dimensional models KW - ground water KW - transport KW - metals KW - Eureka Missouri KW - electromagnetic methods KW - surveys KW - waste disposal KW - military facilities KW - USGS KW - 20:Applied geophysics KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51768427?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=Ball%2C+Lyndsay+B%3BKress%2C+Wade+H%3BAnderson%2C+Eric+D%3BTeeple%2C+Andrew+P%3BFerguson%2C+James+W%3BColbert%2C+Charles+R&rft.aulast=Ball&rft.aufirst=Lyndsay&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Surface+geophysical+investigation+of+the+areal+and+vertical+extent+of+metallic+waste+at+the+former+Tyson+Valley+Powder+Farm+near+Eureka%2C+Missouri%2C+spring+2004&rft.title=Surface+geophysical+investigation+of+the+areal+and+vertical+extent+of+metallic+waste+at+the+former+Tyson+Valley+Powder+Farm+near+Eureka%2C+Missouri%2C+spring+2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/sir/2004/5208/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 21 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Dec. 7, 2004; includes appendices; Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06439 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - electromagnetic methods; Eureka Missouri; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; ground water; magnetic anomalies; mapping; metals; military facilities; Missouri; pollutants; pollution; resistivity; Saint Louis County Missouri; soils; surveys; transport; two-dimensional models; Tyson Valley Powder Farm; United States; USGS; waste disposal ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydrodynamic simulation and particle-tracking techniques for identification of source areas to public-water intakes on the St. Clair-Detroit River Waterway in the Great Lakes Basin AN - 51764856; 2005-004759 AB - Source areas to public water intakes on the St. Clair-Detroit River Waterway were identified by use of hydrodynamic simulation and particle-tracking analyses to help protect public supplies from contaminant spills and discharges. This report describes techniques used to identify these areas and illustrates typical results using selected points on St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. JF - Scientific Investigations Report AU - Holtschlag, David J AU - Koschik, John A Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 29 PB - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA KW - United States KW - Great Lakes region KW - simulation KW - transport KW - movement KW - tracers KW - drainage basins KW - waterways KW - velocity KW - hydrodynamics KW - discharge KW - USGS KW - Lake Saint Clair KW - Saint Clair River KW - protection KW - North America KW - water supply KW - surface water KW - two-dimensional models KW - Ontario KW - Detroit River KW - Canada KW - streamflow KW - identification KW - Michigan KW - Eastern Canada KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51764856?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=Holtschlag%2C+David+J%3BKoschik%2C+John+A&rft.aulast=Holtschlag&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Hydrodynamic+simulation+and+particle-tracking+techniques+for+identification+of+source+areas+to+public-water+intakes+on+the+St.+Clair-Detroit+River+Waterway+in+the+Great+Lakes+Basin&rft.title=Hydrodynamic+simulation+and+particle-tracking+techniques+for+identification+of+source+areas+to+public-water+intakes+on+the+St.+Clair-Detroit+River+Waterway+in+the+Great+Lakes+Basin&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/sir/2004/5072/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 17 N1 - Availability - U. S. Geol. Surv., Denver, CO, United States N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Prepared in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06439 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Canada; Detroit River; discharge; drainage basins; Eastern Canada; Great Lakes region; hydrodynamics; identification; Lake Saint Clair; Michigan; movement; North America; Ontario; protection; Saint Clair River; simulation; streamflow; surface water; tracers; transport; two-dimensional models; United States; USGS; velocity; water supply; waterways ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling and design of new T-groins along the southwest coast of Florida AN - 51750680; 2005-017743 AB - This paper describes the functional design of T-groins as part of an erosion-control project constructed along the southwest coast of Florida. Coastal erosion along Gasparilla Island, a sandy barrier Island located along the southwest coast of Florida, was analyzed through various modeling stages that describe the functioning of T-groins and breakwaters in stabilizing an eroding beach near a tidal inlet. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Dabees, Mohamed A AU - Humiston, Kenneth K A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 324 EP - 341 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - barrier islands KW - beach nourishment KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - one-dimensional models KW - NLINE model KW - data processing KW - shorelines KW - prediction KW - rates KW - Lee County Florida KW - Gasparilla Island KW - Florida KW - southwestern Florida KW - marine installations KW - erosion control KW - digital simulation KW - groins KW - ONELINE model KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51750680?accountid=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=Modeling+and+design+of+new+T-groins+along+the+southwest+coast+of+Florida&rft.au=Dabees%2C+Mohamed+A%3BHumiston%2C+Kenneth+K&rft.aulast=Dabees&rft.aufirst=Mohamed&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=324&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 32 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendix N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - barrier islands; beach nourishment; data processing; design; digital simulation; erosion; erosion control; Florida; Gasparilla Island; groins; Lee County Florida; littoral erosion; marine installations; NLINE model; numerical models; one-dimensional models; ONELINE model; prediction; rates; sediment transport; shorelines; southwestern Florida; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Advancements in one-line modeling of T-head groins; Genesis-T AN - 51750650; 2005-017742 AB - The GENESIS numerical model has successfully supported numerous projects worldwide in simulating shoreline change and longshore sediment transport on wave-dominated beaches. Although GENESIS can quantitatively estimate the response of the beach to almost arbitrary configurations of initial shoreline shapes, shore-protection structures, and beach fill placements, some processes are not yet represented. This paper describes a new major capability recently implemented in the model, representation of tombolos at detached breakwaters and T-head groins. Illustrative examples indicate the validity of this enhancement to GENESIS. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Hanson, Hans AU - Kraus, Nicholas C A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 315 EP - 323 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - shore features KW - experimental studies KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - analog simulation KW - data processing KW - shorelines KW - prediction KW - altimetry KW - GENESIS model KW - physical models KW - variations KW - laboratory studies KW - marine installations KW - scale models KW - erosion control KW - ocean waves KW - digital simulation KW - groins KW - littoral erosion KW - tombolos KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51750650?accountid=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=Advancements+in+one-line+modeling+of+T-head+groins%3B+Genesis-T&rft.au=Hanson%2C+Hans%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C&rft.aulast=Hanson&rft.aufirst=Hans&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=315&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ 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 - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - altimetry; analog simulation; data processing; digital simulation; erosion; erosion control; experimental studies; GENESIS model; groins; laboratory studies; littoral erosion; marine installations; numerical models; ocean waves; physical models; prediction; scale models; sediment transport; shore features; shorelines; tombolos; variations ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Permeable wood groins; case study on their impact on the coastal system AN - 51750629; 2005-017730 AB - The functioning of groins includes such purposes as trapping sand from the littoral system, serving as a hard point to advance the updrift shoreline, acting as a terminal structure to reduce losses into a sand sink, and reducing losses of sand placed as nourishment. Groins can be impermeable or permeable, the latter type of structure being the subject of this paper. The southern shoreline of Naples Beach, Collier County, Florida is stabilized by a permeable wood groin field. Constructed in the 1950's, the groin field was designed to stabilize the beach and reduce sediment losses off the beach into Gordon Pass, the end of the littoral cell. Because of age and deterioration, the groins no longer function as designed. Collier County contracted with the University of Florida in support of the permitting and restoration of the permeable groin field to its original design function. The University of Florida study included a series of laboratory experiments and development of a numerical model to gain a quantitative understanding of groin hydrodynamics. Observations from the experiments and model results were compared to Naples Beach. Design criteria for permeable groins including groin length, spacing and permeability were established. This paper presents the Naples Beach Case Study, literature review of previous work on permeable groins, and results of the University of Florida study supporting the functions and benefits of permeable versus impermeable groins. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Poff, Michael T AU - Stephen, Michael F AU - Dean, Robert G AU - Mulcahy, Sean A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 131 EP - 144 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - currents KW - experimental studies KW - numerical models KW - erosion KW - analog simulation KW - Florida KW - ocean currents KW - two-dimensional models KW - laboratory studies KW - marine installations KW - Collier County Florida KW - scale models KW - erosion control KW - ocean waves KW - groins KW - velocity KW - Naples Florida KW - beach profiles KW - piles KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51750629?accountid=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=Permeable+wood+groins%3B+case+study+on+their+impact+on+the+coastal+system&rft.au=Poff%2C+Michael+T%3BStephen%2C+Michael+F%3BDean%2C+Robert+G%3BMulcahy%2C+Sean&rft.aulast=Poff&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=131&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 8 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - analog simulation; beach profiles; Collier County Florida; currents; design; erosion; erosion control; experimental studies; Florida; groins; laboratory studies; littoral erosion; marine installations; Naples Florida; numerical models; ocean currents; ocean waves; piles; scale models; two-dimensional models; United States; velocity ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The importance of aesthetic aspects in the design of coastal groins AN - 51750114; 2005-017727 AB - Typical coastal groin field systems are associated with significant negative visual impact, independent on the undesirable effects that such groins might cause on downdrift beaches. Nevertheless, few nation-wide coastal zone policies have tried to minimize the negative visual intrusion of such groins. Spain, however, has led that kind of policy. Despite any unattractive aspects, coastal groins are, in many cases, an unavoidable and necessary complement to beach nourishment. They delay fill erosion and lessen periodic renourishment costs. This solution has been socially well accepted in many cases when aesthetic aspects have been incorporated explicitly as a crucial part of the whole beach restoration project. In particular terminal groins can improve the social acceptance of beach restoration projects, when adequately designed from both aesthetic and recreational standpoints. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Gomez-Pina, Gregorio A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 83 EP - 98 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - beach nourishment KW - erosion KW - Spain KW - Europe KW - Iberian Peninsula KW - structures KW - Southern Europe KW - case studies KW - marine installations KW - land management KW - groins KW - coastal environment KW - policy KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51750114?accountid=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=The+importance+of+aesthetic+aspects+in+the+design+of+coastal+groins&rft.au=Gomez-Pina%2C+Gregorio&rft.aulast=Gomez-Pina&rft.aufirst=Gregorio&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=83&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 2 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - beach nourishment; case studies; coastal environment; design; erosion; Europe; groins; Iberian Peninsula; land management; marine installations; policy; Southern Europe; Spain; structures ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Cross-shore distribution of alongshore currents and sediment fluxes in the vicinity of notched groins AN - 51750059; 2005-017738 AB - Increasing the permeability of a groin by notching will encourage sediments to wash through or over the notch to downdrift beaches while maintaining a straight and uniform shoreline. It remains unclear, however, about the extent to which sediment flux to downdrift beaches is increased and how the notch affects the nearshore current structure. Stevens Institute of Technology and the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, conducted field experiments to examine the impacts of groin notching on the hydrodynamics and sediment transport patterns up drift and downdrift of the structure. These experiments were conducted with the aim of providing high-resolution measurements of the nearshore circulation pattern and quantitative estimates of sediment transport flux through the notch. Experiments were conducted at Long Beach Island and in Spring Lake, New Jersey. Both studies included directional wave and water elevation measurements, beach profile surveys, sediment flux measurements, and current measurements at several locations. Analysis of the field data revealed that that the most effective sediment bypassing occurs when the notch was located in the swash zone rather than the surf zone. It was also found that the tide shifts the region of maximum alongshore currents and sediment flux relative to the position of the notch and that notching in the surf zone is most efficient when waves were breaking at the seaward end of the notch. Notching in the surf zone caused a localized increase in the magnitude of the alongshore current over that which would be expected for a planar beach. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Rankin, Kelly L AU - Herrington, Thomas O AU - Bruno, Michael S AU - Burke, Patrick B AU - Pence, Anne M A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 255 EP - 268 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - currents KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - longshore currents KW - Long Beach Island KW - ocean currents KW - spatial distribution KW - marine installations KW - Spring Lake New Jersey KW - Monmouth County New Jersey KW - erosion control KW - ocean waves KW - groins KW - velocity KW - Ocean County New Jersey KW - New Jersey KW - bathymetry KW - littoral erosion KW - sediment traps KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51750059?accountid=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=Cross-shore+distribution+of+alongshore+currents+and+sediment+fluxes+in+the+vicinity+of+notched+groins&rft.au=Rankin%2C+Kelly+L%3BHerrington%2C+Thomas+O%3BBruno%2C+Michael+S%3BBurke%2C+Patrick+B%3BPence%2C+Anne+M&rft.aulast=Rankin&rft.aufirst=Kelly&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=255&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ 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 - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bathymetry; currents; erosion; erosion control; groins; littoral erosion; Long Beach Island; longshore currents; marine installations; Monmouth County New Jersey; New Jersey; Ocean County New Jersey; ocean currents; ocean waves; sediment transport; sediment traps; spatial distribution; Spring Lake New Jersey; United States; velocity ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydraulic functioning of permeable pile groins AN - 51750011; 2005-017732 AB - Permeable pile groins are particularly popular along the southern part of the Baltic Sea coast. Although in use since the 18th century, the knowledge available does not yet allow to provide a definite answer to their functioning. For this purpose, an extensive research program was initiated at the Leichtweiss-Institute in Braunschweig, Germany. The main objective of this paper is to present and discuss the underlying hydraulic processes of permeable groins as compared to their impermeable counterparts, and then to suggest tentative practical recommendations for the design of permeable pile groins. For this purpose, systematic fixed-bed model tests as well as field surveys along the Baltic Coast were carried out. The laboratory investigations include systematic tests with single groins as well as with groin systems which are first subject to a uniform longshore current without waves (Phase I) and then to oblique waves (Phase II). The laboratory experiments are used to investigate the flow and water level conditions induced by groins as a function of the permeability and other characteristics of the groins. The field surveys rather focus on observations of morphological profile changes induced by permeable groins. These morphological changes are linked with the current conditions recorded in the laboratory. Both laboratory results and the field surveys indicate that the hydraulic functioning of permeable and impermeable groins are fundamentally different. Permeable groins show clear advantages as compared with their impermeable counterparts with respect to (i) the water level conditions in the groin fields, (ii) the changes of velocity distribution induced by groins and groin systems, (iii) the generation of large-scale flow patterns and vortices and (iv) the formation of rip-currents. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Trampenau, Thomas AU - Oumeraci, Hocine AU - Dette, Hans H A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 160 EP - 187 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - currents KW - experimental studies KW - Warnemunde Germany KW - hydraulics KW - erosion KW - longshore currents KW - Europe KW - physical models KW - ocean currents KW - laboratory studies KW - marine installations KW - scale models KW - Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Germany KW - erosion control KW - Central Europe KW - groins KW - velocity KW - beach profiles KW - piles KW - Germany KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51750011?accountid=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=Hydraulic+functioning+of+permeable+pile+groins&rft.au=Trampenau%2C+Thomas%3BOumeraci%2C+Hocine%3BDette%2C+Hans+H&rft.aulast=Trampenau&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=160&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 24 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 5 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - beach profiles; Central Europe; currents; design; erosion; erosion control; Europe; experimental studies; Germany; groins; hydraulics; laboratory studies; littoral erosion; longshore currents; marine installations; Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Germany; ocean currents; physical models; piles; scale models; velocity; Warnemunde Germany ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Design and construction of a large headland system, Keta Sea Defence Project, West Africa AN - 51749885; 2005-017741 AB - This paper describes the design and construction of a large headland system in a dominant unidirectional longshore sand transport environment. The project consists of a revetment, six large headlands and beachfill to protect a naturally eroding beach, to minimize the downdrift impacts through bypassing the historic supply of sand and compensating for part of the sand budget deficit, and to allow for continued seine net fishing. The design methodology involved sediment budget analysis, physical and numerical modeling, and shoreline monitoring. An intensive monitoring program in the construction phase of the project has been conducted to test several critical and underlying assumptions of the design phase and to modify the design accordingly. Several design criteria such as shape, length and spacing of the headlands; beach plan shapes, required beachfill quantities and construction consideration considerations are also discussed. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Nairn, Robert B AU - Dibajnia, Mohammad A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 294 EP - 314 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - erosion KW - data processing KW - digital simulation KW - beach profiles KW - Keta Lagoon KW - littoral erosion KW - construction KW - protection KW - jetties KW - Ghana KW - monitoring KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - shorelines KW - prediction KW - rates KW - altimetry KW - West Africa KW - marine installations KW - planning KW - erosion control KW - ocean waves KW - groins KW - Africa KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51749885?accountid=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=Design+and+construction+of+a+large+headland+system%2C+Keta+Sea+Defence+Project%2C+West+Africa&rft.au=Nairn%2C+Robert+B%3BDibajnia%2C+Mohammad&rft.aulast=Nairn&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=294&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Africa; altimetry; beach profiles; construction; data processing; design; digital simulation; erosion; erosion control; Ghana; groins; jetties; Keta Lagoon; littoral erosion; marine installations; monitoring; numerical models; ocean waves; planning; prediction; protection; rates; sediment transport; shorelines; West Africa ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Nearshore currents and sediment transport measured at notched groins AN - 51749850; 2005-017737 AB - During the 1990's, New Jersey's Atlantic shoreline was restored with a series of shore-protection projects incorporating the State's many groin fields. Because shore-protection and beach-restoration projects are designed to provide a stable and uniform beach, the trapping function of groins and the associated alongshore shoreline variability is undersirable. To promote sediment transport to downdrift beaches, many groins in New Jersey have been notched, involving removal of a portion of the top layer. However, there remains a great deal of uncertainty about the modification of the nearshore hydrodynamics and sediment transport at notched groins. Stevens Institute of Technology and the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, conducted field studies in Spring Lake and Long Beach Island, New Jersey, to examine the short-term response of the nearshore current structure and sediment transport at fine temporal (order of minutes) and spatial (order of meters) scales in the vicinity of the notched groins. Beach profile surveys and measurement of directional waves, and water elevation, sediment flux and current were made at several locations. Analyses revealed that the cross-shore location of the notch relative to the position of the surf zone strongly controls the direction and magnitude of sediment flux through the notch. It was also found that the groin notch should be located within the swash zone under all but extreme wave conditions to maintain comparable beach profiles updrift and downdrift of the structure. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Rankin, Kelly L AU - Bruno, Michael S AU - Herrington, Thomas O A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 237 EP - 254 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - erosion KW - longshore currents KW - suspended materials KW - velocity KW - beach profiles KW - Ocean County New Jersey KW - littoral erosion KW - currents KW - concentration KW - beach nourishment KW - sediment transport KW - sedimentation KW - Long Beach Island KW - altimetry KW - ocean currents KW - marine installations KW - Spring Lake New Jersey KW - Monmouth County New Jersey KW - erosion control KW - ocean waves KW - groins KW - New Jersey KW - bathymetry KW - coastal sedimentation KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51749850?accountid=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=Nearshore+currents+and+sediment+transport+measured+at+notched+groins&rft.au=Rankin%2C+Kelly+L%3BBruno%2C+Michael+S%3BHerrington%2C+Thomas+O&rft.aulast=Rankin&rft.aufirst=Kelly&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=237&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 6 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - altimetry; bathymetry; beach nourishment; beach profiles; coastal sedimentation; concentration; currents; erosion; erosion control; groins; littoral erosion; Long Beach Island; longshore currents; marine installations; Monmouth County New Jersey; New Jersey; Ocean County New Jersey; ocean currents; ocean waves; sediment transport; sedimentation; Spring Lake New Jersey; suspended materials; United States; velocity ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Groin functional design guidance from the Coastal Engineering Manual AN - 51749576; 2005-017729 AB - Groins are constructed to retain sand on the subaerial beach. Modern coastal engineering practice combines beach nourishment with a groin design suitable to permit sand bypassing of the groin field without loss to the system. This paper summarizes elements in the functional design of groins as presented in the new Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The CEM replaces the Shore Protection Manual. The most significant change is the explicit acknowledgement of a minimum, dry beach width as a central empirical design criterion for the use of groins in coastal storm protection. Modern numerical models are helpful to study coastal processes both alongshore and on-offshore for the project location and in conducting an analysis of design elements. Field monitoring and the development of performance criteria are also recommended to determine the level of performance success, to establish triggers prompting the need for project maintenance, and to identify adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. Such practices and safeguards will help to overcome the negative perceptions of groins and groin fields as a viable technology for coastal erosion mitigation. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Basco, David R AU - Pope, Joan A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 121 EP - 130 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - stabilization KW - marine installations KW - numerical models KW - erosion KW - erosion control KW - digital simulation KW - groins KW - data processing KW - shorelines KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51749576?accountid=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=Groin+functional+design+guidance+from+the+Coastal+Engineering+Manual&rft.au=Basco%2C+David+R%3BPope%2C+Joan&rft.aulast=Basco&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=121&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 22 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - data processing; design; digital simulation; erosion; erosion control; groins; littoral erosion; marine installations; numerical models; shorelines; stabilization ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Experience with groin notching along the northern New Jersey coast AN - 51749502; 2005-017734 AB - Groin notching was introduced as an innovative engineering alternative for a 21-mile beach fill project in northern New Jersey. The pre-project beach consisted of large shore perpendicular rubble mound structures and almost no dry beach width. While designing the beach fill, the potential of the rubble mound groins to interrupt long-shore sediment transport and decrease the project's longevity was a concern. Removing all of the groins was financially prohibitive. However, removing the 100 ft section from each groin that was in the active sediment transport zone surfaced as an alternative whereby the groin could potentially trap some of the sediment and also allow some sediment to be transported to downdrift beaches. This groin notching technique was demonstrated on 35 groins that were notched between 1995 and 1999. This case study describes the history of the project, the design memorandum conclusions, construction considerations, and monitoring results. A shoreline analysis of 15 groins compartments was done to determine the most optimum cross-shore location to place the groin notch. Based on the limited data, it appears that placing the notch closer to shore minimizes overall dry beach erosion and maintains larger minimum beach widths. However, notches closer to shore form larger updrift fillets and cause the shorelines to be slightly crescent. More data and research are necessary, as significant scatter in the data exists. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Donohue, Kerry Anne AU - Bocamazo, Lynn Marie AU - Dvorak, Daniel A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 198 EP - 214 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - northern New Jersey KW - monitoring KW - erosion KW - landform evolution KW - shorelines KW - remediation KW - marine installations KW - Monmouth County New Jersey KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - aerial photography KW - New Jersey KW - littoral erosion KW - remote sensing KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51749502?accountid=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=Experience+with+groin+notching+along+the+northern+New+Jersey+coast&rft.au=Donohue%2C+Kerry+Anne%3BBocamazo%2C+Lynn+Marie%3BDvorak%2C+Daniel&rft.aulast=Donohue&rft.aufirst=Kerry&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=198&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aerial photography; erosion; erosion control; groins; landform evolution; littoral erosion; marine installations; monitoring; Monmouth County New Jersey; New Jersey; northern New Jersey; remediation; remote sensing; shorelines; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Movable-bed model investigation of groin notching AN - 51749239; 2005-017744 AB - Groin notching, the purposeful lowering of a portion of the structure to promote controlled movement of sand alongshore, has been implemented for evaluation along the New Jersey coast by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Notching increases the longshore sand transport through the structure that can reach the downdrift beach while maintaining some local level of protection. Notching is typically more economical than shortening of an existing structure. Because little is known about the functioning of notched groins, a movable-bed physical model study was conducted to examine processes and responses at a single groin installed in a large wave basin. Cases investigated were: a long, impermeable groin; a short groin (as compared to the long groin), and three notched-groin variations as a notch at the breaker line, notch in the mid-surf zone, and notch in the swash zone. The purpose of the short and notched groins was to allow controlled bypassing of sand transported alongshore by waves breaking at an oblique angle. The various groin configurations produced different patterns of the nearshore current and sand transport, inducing different beach and shoreline responses. Groin influence on breaking wave height and sand suspension was limited to the vicinity of the structure. Factors that determined the functioning were the distribution patterns of the longshore and cross-shore sand transport, permeability of the groin, groin length, and location and depth of the notch. A notch located in the swash zone produced the greatest direct benefit to the subaerial beach and was considered the most efficient. It is desirable to allow some passing of the longshore current through the outer surf zone to reduce the development of a rip current. The rip current that tends to persist on the updrift side of a groin transports sand offshore and acts to produce a net loss of beach sand to the offshore region. Onshore transport is necessary for the sand that is transported to the offshore by a rip current to nourish the downdrift beach, and a net onshore-transport condition may not always occur on all coasts. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Wang, Ping AU - Kraus, Nicholas C A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 342 EP - 367 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - protection KW - currents KW - concentration KW - experimental studies KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - analog simulation KW - shorelines KW - suspended materials KW - rates KW - altimetry KW - physical models KW - ocean currents KW - spatial distribution KW - laboratory studies KW - marine installations KW - scale models KW - erosion control KW - ocean waves KW - groins KW - beach profiles KW - littoral erosion KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51749239?accountid=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=Movable-bed+model+investigation+of+groin+notching&rft.au=Wang%2C+Ping%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C&rft.aulast=Wang&rft.aufirst=Ping&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=342&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 28 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - altimetry; analog simulation; beach profiles; concentration; currents; erosion; erosion control; experimental studies; groins; laboratory studies; littoral erosion; marine installations; ocean currents; ocean waves; physical models; protection; rates; scale models; sediment transport; shorelines; spatial distribution; suspended materials ER - TY - JOUR T1 - History of the uniquely designed groins along the Chicago lakeshore AN - 51749193; 2005-017724 AB - At key locations along the 43 km (27 mi) Chicago lakeshore are six prominent groins that retain sand in artificial beaches. These groins were built along a made-land (i.e., lakefill) shore in water as much as 6 m (20 ft) deep. The oldest of these groins dates from 1904. During their lives the groins have had varying degrees of rehabilitation and modifications, but all have performed well in the retention of beach sand. The older groins (pre-1931) were built as rock-filled timber cribs that were later faced with steel sheetpile during major rehabilitation projects; the younger groins (since 1931) were built with cribs of steel sheetpile. These six groins range in length from 61 to 762 m (200 to 2500ft). All are wide structures (3.8-9.7 m; 12.5-32 ft) having formed-in-place concrete walkways as a cap which provide public access along the groins. Each serves as an extension of the adjacent lakeshore parks providing access to an offshore destination point for fishing, jogging, walking, or viewing the city skyline from across the water. These groins of the Chicago lakeshore are examples of how such structures on an urban shore can not only perform beach retention, but can also contribute to the aesthetics of the shore and be an integral part of a well-designed urban shoreline. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Chrzastowski, Michael J A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 19 EP - 38 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - jetties KW - North America KW - Illinois KW - shorelines KW - history KW - piers KW - Lake Michigan KW - planning KW - erosion control KW - Chicago Illinois KW - groins KW - Great Lakes KW - construction KW - design KW - Cook County Illinois KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51749193?accountid=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=History+of+the+uniquely+designed+groins+along+the+Chicago+lakeshore&rft.au=Chrzastowski%2C+Michael+J&rft.aulast=Chrzastowski&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=19&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 32 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Chicago Illinois; construction; Cook County Illinois; design; erosion control; Great Lakes; groins; history; Illinois; jetties; Lake Michigan; North America; piers; planning; shorelines; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Permeable pile groin fields AN - 51749136; 2005-017731 AB - Permeable pile groins, usually as a single row of piles driven into the seabed, have been constructed in large numbers along the southern shore of the tideless Baltic Sea for over a century and half. Permeable pile groins have also been used as a means of river control. Yet, they barely feature in the literature, in contrast to impervious groins. The performance of pervious pile groins differs from that of impervious groins. The shoreline with permeable pile groins is typically continuous and does not display the saw-tooth feature of a shoreline responding to impervious groins. The permeable pile groins act as a roughness to shore-parallel flow and slows it down. By not completely intercepting the longshore current, pile groins are arguably more efficient than solid groins. Their effect on waves is small. The superposition of a current on wave motion substantially increases the turbulence intensity at the bed, leading to an increased amount of sediment mobilized and transported by the longshore current. Any reduction in the longshore current velocity through a groin field therefore leads to a reduction in the amount of sediment transported. Laboratory and field data indicate that at approximately 30% of mean permeability and groin spacing equal to groin length, the flow pattern through a field of permeable groins is orderly, and without large scale circulation. Rip currents are also minimized. The increase of shore-parallel velocity seaward past the groin fields is 60 to 75% of that of impervious groins, depending on the relative length of the groin to distance to the breaker line. Rip current velocities are reduced by similar amounts. This paper concludes with a few applications of permeable pile groins. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Dette, Hans H AU - Raudkivi, Arved J AU - Oumeraci, Hocine A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 145 EP - 159 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - currents KW - erosion KW - shorelines KW - longshore currents KW - Europe KW - ocean currents KW - case studies KW - marine installations KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - velocity KW - beach profiles KW - piles KW - Baltic region KW - littoral erosion KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51749136?accountid=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=Permeable+pile+groin+fields&rft.au=Dette%2C+Hans+H%3BRaudkivi%2C+Arved+J%3BOumeraci%2C+Hocine&rft.aulast=Dette&rft.aufirst=Hans&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=145&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 26 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Baltic region; beach profiles; case studies; currents; erosion; erosion control; Europe; groins; littoral erosion; longshore currents; marine installations; ocean currents; piles; shorelines; velocity ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Headlands and groins; replicating natural systems AN - 51748721; 2005-017740 AB - California is the most populous state in the nation, and 80 percent of its 35 million people now live within 50 km. of the coast. Beaches play a major role in the state's economy as recreational outlets and vacation destinations but also serve to buffer developed coastal bluffs and cliffs from direct wave attack. A reduction of beach sand supply has taken place over the past several decades due to a combination of dams on coastal streams, armoring of eroding seacliffs, mining of sand directly from river beds as well as the shoreline and the reduction in large sand contributions from coastal construction projects. The most common historical response to both seasonal beach erosion and long-term shoreline retreat in California has been seawalls and rip-rap. In recent years beach nourishment has been advocated by local government and the tourist industry as a solution to shoreline erosion and beach losses. More recently, the concept of removing dams which no longer serve any useful purpose and have trapped large volumes of beach sand have begun to be seriously evaluated. Groins have been successfully used in California to create, widen or stabilize beaches. Many of California's beaches exist because of natural littoral drift barriers such as headlands and a number owe their existence to artificial barriers such as groins, jetties and breakwaters. Groins mimic natural features and with appropriate planning, can be used more extensively to hold the sand on California's beaches in place, thereby increasing both shoreline protection and recreational areas at far less maintenance, cost and with less negative environmental impact than either armoring or artificial nourishment. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Griggs, Gary B A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 280 EP - 293 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - protection KW - shore features KW - erosion KW - Central California KW - shorelines KW - case studies KW - California KW - marine installations KW - headlands KW - Southern California KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - littoral erosion KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51748721?accountid=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=Headlands+and+groins%3B+replicating+natural+systems&rft.au=Griggs%2C+Gary+B&rft.aulast=Griggs&rft.aufirst=Gary&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=280&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 15 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - California; case studies; Central California; erosion; erosion control; groins; headlands; littoral erosion; marine installations; protection; shore features; shorelines; Southern California; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Management and engineering guidelines for groin rehabilitation AN - 51748682; 2005-017726 AB - This paper offers management and coastal engineering guidelines for groin installation and rehabilitation based on project experience in South Carolina. It includes a short history of practice during the 1930s to 1960s, when most groins were built. Traditional practice in South Carolina involved pile-supported timber structures, extending 75-100 m offshore, spaced approximately 200 m apart. Timber groins typically had uniform profiles at slopes of 1 on 40 to 1 on 50, compared to 1 on 25 for the native beach. Early groin fields did not include nourishment to fill the cells, and in some cases (e.g., Edisto Beach), resulted in downcoast property damage. Timber structures typically deteriorated within 20 years and were replaced by quarry stone. However, inadequacy of armorstone weights led to failure of structures. Recent projects at Edisto Beach and Pawleys Island (detailed herein) demonstrate the feasibility of using grout to create a stable, impermeable structure at modest cost without changing the existing groin cross-sections. Monitoring results after the Edisto Beach project demonstrate the nourishment requirement to satisfy trapping can be approximated by approximately one-half the difference in area between the groin profile and average beach profile in the updrift cell times the length of a cell. Results suggest the degree of adverse downcoast erosion and shoreline recession due to groins is directly related to the regional erosion rate. South Carolina case studies demonstrate mixed results. Where groins were placed along slowly eroding shorelines (e.g., Pawleys Island), updrift of areas having a long-term trend of accretion because of shoal bypassing or other inlet-related processes, there was negligible adverse impact. Where groins were placed along rapidly eroding shorelines or ones lacking an adequate upcoast supply (e.g., Edisto Beach), adverse downcoast impacts were magnified. In the Edisto Beach case, the groin field has reduced the erosion rate within the protected area by 5-10 fold and preserved property worth 50 times more than the capital cost of the shore protection. Periodic nourishment is considered to be the only practicable way to maintain adequate protection and mitigate downcoast impacts in that setting. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Kana, Timothy W AU - White, Thomas E AU - McKee, Philip A A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 57 EP - 82 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - beach nourishment KW - South Carolina KW - erosion KW - Charleston County South Carolina KW - shorelines KW - history KW - marine installations KW - Folly Beach South Carolina KW - Pawleys Island KW - Georgetown County South Carolina KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - Edisto Beach South Carolina KW - littoral erosion KW - construction KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51748682?accountid=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=Management+and+engineering+guidelines+for+groin+rehabilitation&rft.au=Kana%2C+Timothy+W%3BWhite%2C+Thomas+E%3BMcKee%2C+Philip+A&rft.aulast=Kana&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=57&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 24 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - beach nourishment; Charleston County South Carolina; construction; design; Edisto Beach South Carolina; erosion; erosion control; Folly Beach South Carolina; Georgetown County South Carolina; groins; history; littoral erosion; marine installations; Pawleys Island; shorelines; South Carolina; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evolution and performance of groins on a sediment starved coast; the Illinois shore of Lake Michigan north of Chicago, 1880-2000 AN - 51748636; 2005-017725 AB - The 30 km (18.6 miles) Illinois shore of Lake Michigan between Chicago and Great Lakes Naval Training Center is almost fully engineered with shore-protection structures that include 289 groins. Construction of groins began in the latter half of the 19th century. By the 1970s, approximately 80 percent of this section of lakeshore was protected with groin-held beaches, as well as by revetments and seawalls at the bluff toe. Although many groins were part of groin-field systems, the majority were built piecemeal as privately owned beaches narrowed or were lost to coastal erosion. The primary mode of groin construction evolved from rock-filled timber crib piers and wood sheetpile groins (pre 1880 to 1930s) to solid and permeable concrete piers (1910 to 1950), cantilever steel sheetpile groins (1920s to 1990s) and, most recently, rubble-mound structures. For more than 120 years, groins were the method of choice for beach stabilization in this area. In years past, groin failure was usually the result of wood deterioration or ice damage. More recently, lakebed scour has resulted in failure at the lakeward ends of steel groins. Other factors that may affect groin performance include shore orientation, local geology and bathymetry, and a littoral system in which sand may move alongshore in discreet slugs. Measurement of 162 functioning groins with heights ranging from 1.2 to 2.8 m (4 to 9 ft) above Low Water Datum, shows that groins 30 to 54 m (100 to 175 ft) in length have been the most successful at holding beaches in a sediment-starved system where lake levels vary up to 1.8 m (6 ft) over decadal periods. However, the data show little direct correlation between groin height and beach area. Little evidence was found for accelerated downdrift erosion caused by groins. Unprotected bluffs erode at rates averaging 0.94 m (3 ft) per year regardless of whether an updrift groin or groin field was present or not. In 1980, Illinois State and Federal regulators began to require that any new beach protection structure be filled with sand to 100 percent of its holding capacity and 120 percent for structures over 38.5 m (125 ft) in length. Twelve years of experience monitoring structures has shown that periodic sand renourishment is also necessary. Thus, since 1980, the net amount of sand in the Illinois littoral drift has increased through overfill and maintenance of new beach systems. Upgrades and new construction in the 1990s include groin armoring and artificial headland construction with random placement quarrystone. From 1987 to 2000, twenty-six new stone breakwaters and groins with quarrystone headlands were built, most as a response to lakebed downcutting. In all cases, regulators required beach nourishment overfill. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Shabica, Charles AU - Meshberg, Jason AU - Keefe, Rita AU - Georges, Robert A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 39 EP - 56 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - North America KW - Illinois KW - erosion KW - shorelines KW - history KW - Lake Michigan KW - Lake County Illinois KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - Great Lakes KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - Cook County Illinois KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51748636?accountid=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=Evolution+and+performance+of+groins+on+a+sediment+starved+coast%3B+the+Illinois+shore+of+Lake+Michigan+north+of+Chicago%2C+1880-2000&rft.au=Shabica%2C+Charles%3BMeshberg%2C+Jason%3BKeefe%2C+Rita%3BGeorges%2C+Robert&rft.aulast=Shabica&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=39&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 15 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendix N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Cook County Illinois; design; erosion; erosion control; Great Lakes; groins; history; Illinois; Lake County Illinois; Lake Michigan; littoral erosion; North America; shorelines; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Wave directional characteristics as a design parameter for groin performance AN - 51747716; 2005-017733 AB - The functioning of a groin system is based on the separation of the open coast into compartments, allowing the coastal stretch within each compartment to rotate to become locally close to parallel to the breaking wave crests. In doing so, the coast becomes more stable as the local longshore sediment transport rate reaches a minimum. However, as reported in several studies, even though properly designed, it is possible that groin systems not only cause down-drift beaches to erode, but also contribute to the generation of rip currents. These rip currents run along the updrift side of the structure, moving sediment offshore where it may be, at least in part, lost from the system. It is well known that the directionality of the incident waves is a central factor for the shoreline response to groins. Until now, however, this directionality has been characterized only by the ratio of net transport rate Q (sub n) to gross transport rate Q (sub g) . In this study it is concluded that the phase lag between the forcing and the morphodynamic response is another key factor responsible for these offshore losses. Based upon this, a relaxation time for open-coast systems and a non-dimensional morphodynamic response factor for groin compartments are introduced as new design parameters for groin systems. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Hanson, Hans AU - Larson, Magnus A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 188 EP - 197 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - currents KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - landform evolution KW - shorelines KW - longshore currents KW - rates KW - mathematical models KW - ocean currents KW - marine installations KW - erosion control KW - ocean waves KW - groins KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51747716?accountid=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=Wave+directional+characteristics+as+a+design+parameter+for+groin+performance&rft.au=Hanson%2C+Hans%3BLarson%2C+Magnus&rft.aulast=Hanson&rft.aufirst=Hans&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=188&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 12 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - currents; design; erosion; erosion control; groins; landform evolution; littoral erosion; longshore currents; marine installations; mathematical models; ocean currents; ocean waves; rates; sediment transport; shorelines ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A continuity approach to groin function and fillet angle AN - 51747715; 2005-017739 AB - Two design parameters are needed to forecast the plan area and length of a groin-retained beach: (1) the distance the shoreline will advance adjacent to the structure (fillet width), and (2) the orientation of the structure-retained shoreline with respect to the pre-project shoreline (fillet angle). Respectively, the fillet angle and the orientation of the downcoast shoreline regulate the quantity of sediment that will reach a groin from upcoast and downcoast. Blocking distances on both sides of the structure, and its effective length, determine the fillet width. Fillet width regulates how much of the material reaching the structure will bypass it in both directions. A continuity of sediment volume approach seems to provide a realistic frame-work to identify aspects of groin function that control the fillet angle and fillet width. This paper focuses on the fillet angle which a continuity parameter indicates: (1) increases with fillet width, probably due to a compression of isobaths off the structure, (2) is inversely proportional to the ratio of the upcoast to downcoast bypass rates, i.e., proportional to the net to gross longshore sediment transport ratio, and (3) declines as the ratio of the accretion rate to the supply or net longshore transport rate lessens as a fillet evolves naturally. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Everts, Craig H AU - Eldon, Carolyn D A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 269 EP - 279 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - Los Angeles County California KW - Ventura County California KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - shorelines KW - prediction KW - mathematical models KW - California KW - marine installations KW - Southern California KW - littoral drift KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51747715?accountid=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=A+continuity+approach+to+groin+function+and+fillet+angle&rft.au=Everts%2C+Craig+H%3BEldon%2C+Carolyn+D&rft.aulast=Everts&rft.aufirst=Craig&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=269&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 9 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - California; design; erosion; erosion control; groins; littoral drift; littoral erosion; Los Angeles County California; marine installations; mathematical models; prediction; sediment transport; shorelines; Southern California; United States; Ventura County California ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Isolated groins at East Hampton, New York AN - 51747690; 2005-017735 AB - Two large groins were constructed soon after a severe erosion episode in 1962. The gross longshore transport is substantially larger than the net drift at the location. Depending on the sequence of conditions sand fillets sometimes accumulate on the east side and sometimes on the west. Over the long term the average beach is expected to be wider on the east side. The structures and associated sand deposits that have developed over the last forty years function as artificial headland. The local wave climate is altered, and in the absence of a predominant net longshore transport, a crenulate shoreline can form on both sides of the pair of structures in conformance with wave refraction and diffraction around a headland. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Bokuniewicz, Henry A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 215 EP - 222 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - East Hampton New York KW - landform evolution KW - shorelines KW - Suffolk County New York KW - New York KW - marine installations KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - beach profiles KW - Long Island KW - littoral erosion KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51747690?accountid=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=Isolated+groins+at+East+Hampton%2C+New+York&rft.au=Bokuniewicz%2C+Henry&rft.aulast=Bokuniewicz&rft.aufirst=Henry&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=215&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 11 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - beach profiles; East Hampton New York; erosion; erosion control; groins; landform evolution; littoral erosion; Long Island; marine installations; New York; sediment transport; shorelines; Suffolk County New York; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Long-term effectiveness of a groin and beach fill system; a case study using shoreline change maps AN - 51747681; 2005-017723 AB - Along the eastern coast of the United States, groins have been emplaced to stabilize beaches for more than 100 years. The popular assessment of their performance is that they typically have not worked and have caused more problems than they have solved. In many cases, these assessments have been made based upon anecdotal information and without the benefit of long-term shoreline change data. As a consequence, some states and local governments have altogether banned the use of groins as a shoreline protection structure. However, in many circumstances, groins have functioned effectively and stabilized an eroding beach without seriously harming adjacent areas. In the face of beach erosion and property loss, groins combined with beach fill should be available as an option as a beach stabilization system where appropriate. This study employs high-quality, spatially and temporally robust (147-year) shoreline change data to assess the performance a groin field. Historical literature and shoreline change maps were studied at Bethany Beach, Delaware to assess the effectiveness of a groin field built there in the 1930s and 40s. The data illustrate shoreline movements before and after groin emplacement. The results of the analysis suggest that the groins at Bethany Beach were poorly constructed; they required several renovations and were built too short to be truly effective. However, the data also indicate that the groins, in conjunction with beach fill, arrested beach erosion at the site and effectively stabilized the beach for nearly 50-years notwithstanding their structural deficiencies. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Galgano, Francis A, Jr A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 3 EP - 18 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - United States KW - stabilization KW - beach nourishment KW - Delaware KW - Sussex County Delaware KW - erosion KW - landform evolution KW - shorelines KW - rates KW - change analysis KW - Bethany Beach Delaware KW - marine installations KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51747681?accountid=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=Long-term+effectiveness+of+a+groin+and+beach+fill+system%3B+a+case+study+using+shoreline+change+maps&rft.au=Galgano%2C+Francis+A%2C+Jr&rft.aulast=Galgano&rft.aufirst=Francis&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=3&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 49 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - beach nourishment; Bethany Beach Delaware; change analysis; Delaware; design; erosion; erosion control; groins; landform evolution; littoral erosion; marine installations; rates; shorelines; stabilization; Sussex County Delaware; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Functioning and design of coastal groins; the interaction of groins and the beach; processes and planning AN - 51747641; 2005-017722 JF - Journal of Coastal Research A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 367 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - processes KW - marine installations KW - planning KW - erosion KW - erosion control KW - groins KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51747641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Functioning+and+design+of+coastal+groins%3B+the+interaction+of+groins+and+the+beach%3B+processes+and+planning&rft.title=Functioning+and+design+of+coastal+groins%3B+the+interaction+of+groins+and+the+beach%3B+processes+and+planning&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Individual papers are cited separately N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - design; erosion; erosion control; groins; littoral erosion; marine installations; planning; processes ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Medium-term bathymetric change around jetties at Imagireguchi Inlet, Japan AN - 51747524; 2005-017736 AB - Medium-term bathymetric change induced by jetties at an entrance of a tidal inlet was examined with a 30-year bathymetric data set. Empirical orthogonal eigenfunction analysis and the investigation on volumetric change showed that the tidal channel deepened after construction of the jetties and that the erosion rate in the channel increased with time. The increase in the erosion rate is probably caused by the stabilization of the location of the channel and focusing of the ebb jet between the jetties. Although the accumulation rate on the up-drift side of the jetties decreased, the amount of sediment supplied to the downdrift beach did not increase. This is because some amount of sediment transported around the jetties was trapped by the ebb-tidal delta. The volume of sediment stored in the ebb-tidal delta was estimated, and compared with the equilibrium volume. Complex empirical orthogonal eigenfunction analysis showed that, during and just after construction of the jetties, shoals formed on both sides of the jetties and moved shoreward. Several years after the completion of construction, however, although the shoal on the downdrift side moved still shoreward, the shoal on the up-drift side moved seaward. The seaward movement of the shoal was assumed to be caused by the return flow and the wave-generated longshore current. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Kuriyama, Yoshiaki AU - Uchiyama, Yusuke AU - Nakamura, Satoshi AU - Nagae, Tomokazu A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 223 EP - 236 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - jetties KW - shore features KW - monitoring KW - Far East KW - Shizuoka Japan KW - erosion KW - sedimentation KW - rates KW - eigenvalues KW - change analysis KW - variations KW - Lake Hamana KW - inlets KW - marine installations KW - deposition KW - Honshu KW - bathymetry KW - Asia KW - coastal sedimentation KW - Japan KW - Imagireguchi Inlet KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51747524?accountid=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=Medium-term+bathymetric+change+around+jetties+at+Imagireguchi+Inlet%2C+Japan&rft.au=Kuriyama%2C+Yoshiaki%3BUchiyama%2C+Yusuke%3BNakamura%2C+Satoshi%3BNagae%2C+Tomokazu&rft.aulast=Kuriyama&rft.aufirst=Yoshiaki&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=223&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 22 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Asia; bathymetry; change analysis; coastal sedimentation; deposition; eigenvalues; erosion; Far East; Honshu; Imagireguchi Inlet; inlets; Japan; jetties; Lake Hamana; marine installations; monitoring; rates; sedimentation; Shizuoka Japan; shore features; variations ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of beach response to submerged groin construction at Marina di Ronchi, Italy, using field data and a numerical simulation model AN - 51747472; 2005-017728 AB - An experimental submerged groin was built in spring 1999 at Marina di Ronchi (Tuscany, Italy), where the erosion rate was 4 m/yr from 1985 to 1998. The groin is 180 m long and built with 2.5X1.8X0.7 m polypropylene bags filled with sand. It is buried under the backshore and extends to the -3 m isobath with a mean elevation of approximately 1 m above the bed. Four sets of cross-shore and longshore bathymetric profile surveys conducted from February 1999 (pre-construction) to April 2000 reveal that the submerged groin enhanced seasonal displacement of the bar system inside the 4 m isobath. Eighty-five sediment samples collected from the swash zone to 6-m water depth reveal limited changes near the groin, except for a coarsening at the landward end and in a depositional area a few hundred meters downdrift of the seaward end. Calculated rates of longshore sediment transport range from 52,909 m (super 3) /yr (Kamphuis formula) to 496,300 m (super 3) /yr (Cerc formula). The submerged groin favors deposition near the structure under fair weather conditions but deep scour (nearly 2 m) during extreme events. Unlike emergent groins, no significant changes were observed on the upper beach at the structure or on adjacent beaches. The submerged groin did not fully cross the bar system, and the deep scour associated with strong currents concentrated at its tip could lead to future collapse of the structure. A numerical model established for the site conditions was run to test the consequence of lengthening the groin to reach a depth of 5 m to place it across the zone of bar migration. The model effectively represents observed processes and predicts less scour and more deposition at the seaward tip of the lengthened groin, combined with increased likelihood of a rip current near the structure. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Aminiti, Pierluigi AU - Cammelli, Chiara AU - Cappietti, Lorenzo AU - Jackson, Nancy L AU - Nordstrom, Karl F AU - Pranzini, Enzo A2 - Kraus, Nicholas C. A2 - Rankin, Kelly L. Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 99 EP - 120 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - Special issue 33 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - monitoring KW - accretion KW - numerical models KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - Tuscany Italy KW - landform evolution KW - grain size KW - data processing KW - shorelines KW - Europe KW - Marina di Ronchi KW - Italy KW - Southern Europe KW - marine installations KW - ocean waves KW - digital simulation KW - sediments KW - groins KW - bathymetry KW - littoral erosion KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51747472?accountid=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=Evaluation+of+beach+response+to+submerged+groin+construction+at+Marina+di+Ronchi%2C+Italy%2C+using+field+data+and+a+numerical+simulation+model&rft.au=Aminiti%2C+Pierluigi%3BCammelli%2C+Chiara%3BCappietti%2C+Lorenzo%3BJackson%2C+Nancy+L%3BNordstrom%2C+Karl+F%3BPranzini%2C+Enzo&rft.aulast=Aminiti&rft.aufirst=Pierluigi&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Special+issue+33&rft.issue=&rft.spage=99&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 64 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accretion; bathymetry; data processing; design; digital simulation; erosion; Europe; grain size; groins; Italy; landform evolution; littoral erosion; Marina di Ronchi; marine installations; monitoring; numerical models; ocean waves; sediment transport; sediments; shorelines; Southern Europe; Tuscany Italy ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Seismic response of earth embankments on marine-like saturated sandy deposits with varying depth loose layer AN - 51722639; 2005-033879 JF - The Proceedings of the ... International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference AU - Sharp, Michael K AU - Adalier, Korhan A2 - Matsui, Tamotsu A2 - Chung, Jin S. A2 - Michel, Jean-Louis A2 - Allersma, Henderikus Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 556 EP - 562 PB - International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Golden, CO VL - 14, Volume 2 SN - 1098-6189, 1098-6189 KW - sand KW - embankments KW - experimental studies KW - geologic hazards KW - clastic sediments KW - loading KW - analog simulation KW - acceleration KW - liquefaction potential KW - seismic response KW - liquefaction KW - physical models KW - laboratory studies KW - cyclic loading KW - scale models KW - earth dams KW - centrifuge methods KW - pore pressure KW - dams KW - sediments KW - risk assessment KW - gravity dams KW - alluvium KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51722639?accountid=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+Proceedings+of+the+...+International+Offshore+and+Polar+Engineering+Conference&rft.atitle=Seismic+response+of+earth+embankments+on+marine-like+saturated+sandy+deposits+with+varying+depth+loose+layer&rft.au=Sharp%2C+Michael+K%3BAdalier%2C+Korhan&rft.aulast=Sharp&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=14%2C+Volume+2&rft.issue=&rft.spage=556&rft.isbn=1880653621&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Proceedings+of+the+...+International+Offshore+and+Polar+Engineering+Conference&rft.issn=10986189&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fourteenth (2004) international offshore and polar engineering conference N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 8 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acceleration; alluvium; analog simulation; centrifuge methods; clastic sediments; cyclic loading; dams; earth dams; embankments; experimental studies; geologic hazards; gravity dams; laboratory studies; liquefaction; liquefaction potential; loading; physical models; pore pressure; risk assessment; sand; scale models; sediments; seismic response ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Quality of water in the unsaturated zone at Camp Shelby, Mississippi; 2002-2004 AN - 51706812; 2005-041933 JF - Scientific Investigations Report AU - Slack, Larry J AU - Mirecki, June E AU - Lemire, Robert E Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 42 PB - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA KW - United States KW - water quality KW - semivolatile organic compounds KW - Grenada County Mississippi KW - unsaturated zone KW - environmental analysis KW - ground water KW - explosives KW - sampling KW - trace elements KW - chemical composition KW - USGS KW - lysimeters KW - geochemistry KW - pH KW - concentration KW - Camp Shelby KW - Mississippi KW - hydrochemistry KW - nutrients KW - volatiles KW - organic compounds KW - volatile organic compounds KW - water wells KW - 02B:Hydrochemistry KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51706812?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=Slack%2C+Larry+J%3BMirecki%2C+June+E%3BLemire%2C+Robert+E&rft.aulast=Slack&rft.aufirst=Larry&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Quality+of+water+in+the+unsaturated+zone+at+Camp+Shelby%2C+Mississippi%3B+2002-2004&rft.title=Quality+of+water+in+the+unsaturated+zone+at+Camp+Shelby%2C+Mississippi%3B+2002-2004&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 32 N1 - Availability - U. S. Geol. Surv., Denver, CO, United States N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 13 tables, sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Prepared in cooperation with the Mississippi Military Department and the U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06439 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Camp Shelby; chemical composition; concentration; environmental analysis; explosives; geochemistry; Grenada County Mississippi; ground water; hydrochemistry; lysimeters; Mississippi; nutrients; organic compounds; pH; sampling; semivolatile organic compounds; trace elements; United States; unsaturated zone; USGS; volatile organic compounds; volatiles; water quality; water wells ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Base course aggregate considerations at Masirah Airbase, Oman AN - 51703659; 2005-047276 JF - Transportation Systems Workshop AU - Rollings, Raymond S AU - Anderton, Gary L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 EP - unpaginaged PB - [publisher varies], [location varies] VL - 2004 KW - soil mechanics KW - engineering properties KW - Oman KW - rock mechanics KW - gravel deposits KW - Arabian Peninsula KW - aircraft landing areas KW - military geology KW - Masirah Island KW - Masirah Airbase KW - military facilities KW - Asia KW - construction KW - design KW - construction materials KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51703659?accountid=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=Transportation+Systems+Workshop&rft.atitle=Base+course+aggregate+considerations+at+Masirah+Airbase%2C+Oman&rft.au=Rollings%2C+Raymond+S%3BAnderton%2C+Gary+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Rollings&rft.aufirst=Raymond&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=2004&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Systems+Workshop&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Transportation systems workshop 2004 N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 8 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - #06481 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aircraft landing areas; Arabian Peninsula; Asia; construction; construction materials; design; engineering properties; gravel deposits; Masirah Airbase; Masirah Island; military facilities; military geology; Oman; rock mechanics; soil mechanics ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Application of flow and transport optimization codes to groundwater pump and treat systems AN - 51559720; 2006-064175 JF - Soil & Sediment Contamination AU - Yager, Kathleen AU - Becker, Dave AU - Harre, Karla AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 206 PB - CRC Press for AEHS (Association for the Environmental Health of Soils), Boca Raton, FL VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1549-7887, 1549-7887 KW - models KW - transport KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - optimization KW - mathematical models KW - pump-and-treat KW - algorithms KW - preferential flow KW - mobility KW - ground water KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51559720?accountid=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=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Application+of+flow+and+transport+optimization+codes+to+groundwater+pump+and+treat+systems&rft.au=Yager%2C+Kathleen%3BBecker%2C+Dave%3BHarre%2C+Karla%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Yager&rft.aufirst=Kathleen&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=206&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15497887&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10588337.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; ground water; mathematical models; mobility; models; optimization; pollutants; pollution; preferential flow; pump-and-treat; transport ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing alternate approaches to estimating uptake of compounds by plants and animals in ecological risk assessments AN - 51558763; 2006-064245 JF - Soil & Sediment Contamination AU - Alsop, William R AU - Samuelian, John H AU - Davis, Robert AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 234 PB - CRC Press for AEHS (Association for the Environmental Health of Soils), Boca Raton, FL VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1549-7887, 1549-7887 KW - United States KW - soils KW - concentration KW - Plantae KW - propellants KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - bioavailability KW - manganese KW - biota KW - habitat KW - organic compounds KW - explosives KW - Massachusetts KW - metals KW - carbon KW - Massachusetts Military Reservation KW - risk assessment KW - ecology KW - particulate materials KW - organic carbon KW - military facilities KW - heavy metals KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51558763?accountid=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=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Assessing+alternate+approaches+to+estimating+uptake+of+compounds+by+plants+and+animals+in+ecological+risk+assessments&rft.au=Alsop%2C+William+R%3BSamuelian%2C+John+H%3BDavis%2C+Robert%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Alsop&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=234&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15497887&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10588337.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bioavailability; biota; carbon; concentration; ecology; explosives; habitat; heavy metals; manganese; Massachusetts; Massachusetts Military Reservation; metals; military facilities; organic carbon; organic compounds; particulate materials; Plantae; pollutants; pollution; propellants; risk assessment; soils; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Field evidence for plant-enhanced PAH degradation and implications for monitoring AN - 51557831; 2006-064208 JF - Soil & Sediment Contamination AU - Reynolds, C M AU - Perry, L B AU - Foley, K L AU - Ringelberg, D B AU - McCarthy, K J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 220 EP - 221 PB - CRC Press for AEHS (Association for the Environmental Health of Soils), Boca Raton, FL VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1549-7887, 1549-7887 KW - fertilizers KW - concentration KW - biodegradation KW - experimental studies KW - degradation KW - pollutants KW - soil treatment KW - pollution KW - rhizosphere KW - vegetation KW - petroleum products KW - remediation KW - organic compounds KW - hydrocarbons KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51557831?accountid=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=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Field+evidence+for+plant-enhanced+PAH+degradation+and+implications+for+monitoring&rft.au=Reynolds%2C+C+M%3BPerry%2C+L+B%3BFoley%2C+K+L%3BRingelberg%2C+D+B%3BMcCarthy%2C+K+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Reynolds&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=220&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15497887&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10588337.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aromatic hydrocarbons; biodegradation; concentration; degradation; experimental studies; fertilizers; hydrocarbons; organic compounds; petroleum products; pollutants; pollution; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; remediation; rhizosphere; soil treatment; vegetation ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) environmental Web-based data management system AN - 51557462; 2006-064124 JF - Soil & Sediment Contamination AU - Bernhardt, Ann AU - Sullivan, Heather AU - Walsh, Matt AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 184 PB - CRC Press for AEHS (Association for the Environmental Health of Soils), Boca Raton, FL VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1549-7887, 1549-7887 KW - United States KW - aquifer vulnerability KW - spatial data KW - data handling KW - reclamation KW - data processing KW - pollution KW - observation wells KW - decision-making KW - World Wide Web KW - preventive measures KW - remediation KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - environmental management KW - computer programs KW - geographic information systems KW - Massachusetts KW - Massachusetts Military Reservation KW - information systems KW - military facilities KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51557462?accountid=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=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Massachusetts+Military+Reservation+%28MMR%29+environmental+Web-based+data+management+system&rft.au=Bernhardt%2C+Ann%3BSullivan%2C+Heather%3BWalsh%2C+Matt%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Bernhardt&rft.aufirst=Ann&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=184&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15497887&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10588337.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifer vulnerability; aquifers; computer programs; data handling; data processing; decision-making; environmental management; geographic information systems; ground water; information systems; Massachusetts; Massachusetts Military Reservation; military facilities; observation wells; pollution; preventive measures; reclamation; remediation; spatial data; United States; World Wide Web ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Toxicity and bioaccumulation testing of zinc from weathered substrates using plants and worms AN - 51557448; 2006-064147 JF - Soil & Sediment Contamination AU - Best, E P H AU - Tatem, H E AU - Geter, K N AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 195 EP - 196 PB - CRC Press for AEHS (Association for the Environmental Health of Soils), Boca Raton, FL VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1549-7887, 1549-7887 KW - soils KW - zinc KW - Plantae KW - food chains KW - pollutants KW - Vermes KW - trophic analysis KW - pollution KW - bioassays KW - biota KW - dredged materials KW - bioaccumulation KW - substrates KW - toxicity KW - metals KW - sediments KW - Invertebrata KW - testing KW - risk assessment KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51557448?accountid=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=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Toxicity+and+bioaccumulation+testing+of+zinc+from+weathered+substrates+using+plants+and+worms&rft.au=Best%2C+E+P+H%3BTatem%2C+H+E%3BGeter%2C+K+N%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=E+P&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=195&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15497887&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10588337.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bioaccumulation; bioassays; biota; dredged materials; food chains; Invertebrata; metals; Plantae; pollutants; pollution; risk assessment; sediments; soils; substrates; testing; toxicity; trophic analysis; Vermes; zinc ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Chlorinated solvent DNAPL extent characterization at the East Gate Disposal Yard (EGDY), Fort Lewis, Washington AN - 51557253; 2006-064169 JF - Soil & Sediment Contamination AU - Lynch, Kira P AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 204 PB - CRC Press for AEHS (Association for the Environmental Health of Soils), Boca Raton, FL VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1549-7887, 1549-7887 KW - United States KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - concentration KW - Washington KW - contaminant plumes KW - Pierce County Washington KW - characterization KW - pollution KW - trichloroethane KW - Fort Lewis KW - dense nonaqueous phase liquids KW - ground water KW - nonaqueous phase liquids KW - organic compounds KW - solvents KW - detection KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - military facilities KW - uncertainty KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51557253?accountid=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=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Chlorinated+solvent+DNAPL+extent+characterization+at+the+East+Gate+Disposal+Yard+%28EGDY%29%2C+Fort+Lewis%2C+Washington&rft.au=Lynch%2C+Kira+P%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Lynch&rft.aufirst=Kira&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=204&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15497887&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10588337.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - characterization; chlorinated hydrocarbons; concentration; contaminant plumes; dense nonaqueous phase liquids; detection; Fort Lewis; ground water; halogenated hydrocarbons; military facilities; nonaqueous phase liquids; organic compounds; Pierce County Washington; pollution; solvents; trichloroethane; uncertainty; United States; Washington ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Toward a sustainable range; assessment of source, transport, and fate of munitions constituents on active army training ranges AN - 51557158; 2006-064130 JF - Soil & Sediment Contamination AU - Mirecki, June E AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 187 PB - CRC Press for AEHS (Association for the Environmental Health of Soils), Boca Raton, FL VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1549-7887, 1549-7887 KW - soils KW - experimental studies KW - monitoring KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - remediation KW - geographic information systems KW - explosives KW - detection KW - decontamination KW - information systems KW - military facilities KW - uncertainty KW - remote sensing KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51557158?accountid=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=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Toward+a+sustainable+range%3B+assessment+of+source%2C+transport%2C+and+fate+of+munitions+constituents+on+active+army+training+ranges&rft.au=Mirecki%2C+June+E%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Mirecki&rft.aufirst=June&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=187&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15497887&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10588337.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - decontamination; detection; experimental studies; explosives; geographic information systems; information systems; military facilities; monitoring; pollutants; pollution; remediation; remote sensing; soils; uncertainty ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effect of tungsten on leaching of lead from contaminated soils AN - 51557078; 2006-064148 JF - Soil & Sediment Contamination AU - Braida, Washington AU - Christodoulatos, Christos AU - Dermatas, Dimitris AU - Los, Michael AU - Larson, Steven L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 196 PB - CRC Press for AEHS (Association for the Environmental Health of Soils), Boca Raton, FL VL - 13 IS - 2 SN - 1549-7887, 1549-7887 KW - soils KW - concentration KW - toxic materials KW - pollutants KW - soil treatment KW - pollution KW - lead KW - explosives KW - tungsten KW - dissolved materials KW - metals KW - alloys KW - military facilities KW - leaching KW - heavy metals KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51557078?accountid=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=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.atitle=Effect+of+tungsten+on+leaching+of+lead+from+contaminated+soils&rft.au=Braida%2C+Washington%3BChristodoulatos%2C+Christos%3BDermatas%2C+Dimitris%3BLos%2C+Michael%3BLarson%2C+Steven+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Braida&rft.aufirst=Washington&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=196&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Soil+%26+Sediment+Contamination&rft.issn=15497887&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/10588337.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 19th annual international conference on Soils, sediments, and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - alloys; concentration; dissolved materials; explosives; heavy metals; leaching; lead; metals; military facilities; pollutants; pollution; soil treatment; soils; toxic materials; tungsten ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sediment suspension induced by vessel traffic in Mississippi River AN - 51393952; 2007-086657 JF - Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences AU - Parchure, T M AU - Benghuzzi, Hamed Y1 - 2004/01// PY - 2004 DA - January 2004 SP - 99 PB - Mississippi Academy of Sciences, Jackson, MS VL - 49 IS - 1 SN - 0076-9436, 0076-9436 KW - United States KW - shear strength KW - communities KW - erosion KW - Mississippi KW - turbidity KW - suspended materials KW - effects KW - ecosystems KW - ecology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51393952?accountid=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+the+Mississippi+Academy+of+Sciences&rft.atitle=Sediment+suspension+induced+by+vessel+traffic+in+Mississippi+River&rft.au=Parchure%2C+T+M%3BBenghuzzi%2C+Hamed&rft.aulast=Parchure&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=99&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+the+Mississippi+Academy+of+Sciences&rft.issn=00769436&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://msacad.org/?page_id=25 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Sixty-eighth annual meeting of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences; Science in Mississippi N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - PubXState - MS N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-15 N1 - CODEN - JMSSAN N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - communities; ecology; ecosystems; effects; erosion; Mississippi; shear strength; suspended materials; turbidity; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geotechnical aspects of homeland defense AN - 50651248; 2008-106147 JF - Geo-strata (Reston, VA) AU - Hynes, Mary Ellen Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 24 EP - 26 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, Geo-Institute, Reston, VA VL - Winter SN - 1529-2975, 1529-2975 KW - United States KW - protection KW - civil engineering KW - engineering geology KW - military geology KW - homeland security KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50651248?accountid=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=Geo-strata+%28Reston%2C+VA%29&rft.atitle=Geotechnical+aspects+of+homeland+defense&rft.au=Hynes%2C+Mary+Ellen&rft.aulast=Hynes&rft.aufirst=Mary&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=Winter&rft.issue=&rft.spage=24&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geo-strata+%28Reston%2C+VA%29&rft.issn=15292975&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2008-01-01 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - civil engineering; engineering geology; homeland security; military geology; protection; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - River basins and coastal systems planning within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers AN - 50580962; 2008-118702 JF - River basins and coastal systems planning within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 167 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - programs KW - shore features KW - rivers and streams KW - government agencies KW - water management KW - shorelines KW - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers KW - structures KW - river banks KW - planning KW - land management KW - fluvial features KW - drainage basins KW - coastal environment KW - policy KW - water resources KW - construction KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50580962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=0309092205&rft.btitle=River+basins+and+coastal+systems+planning+within+the+U.S.+Army+Corps+of+Engineers&rft.title=River+basins+and+coastal+systems+planning+within+the+U.S.+Army+Corps+of+Engineers&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 - 124 N1 - Availability - National Academies Press, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Includes appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of near-surface converted-mode seismic reflection imaging potential AN - 50061669; 2008-088869 AB - The potential for improving near-surface characterization through converted-mode (P-S and S-P) seismic reflection imaging was tested experimentally and assessed numerically. High-resolution nine-component reflection data were acquired over a geologic sequence type (flat-lying unsaturated and saturated overburden materials above consolidated units) commonly encountered during geotechnical investigations. Interface energy partitioning analyses, event predictions, and elastic-wave modeling were conducted using parameters derived from field data. Common-mode (P-P and S-S) reflections from known lithologic boundaries were observed in field data; however, predicted converted-mode events were not. Modeling demonstrated that in theory, potential benefits of converted-mode reflection imaging exist for the tested subsurface conditions, but that such benefits were unable to be practically realized using field measurements, due to the low amplitudes of converted-mode reflections and the detrimental affects of random and coherent noise modes. This study shows and explains why it is not practical to use converted-mode reflection imaging for improving characterization under such subsurface conditions. The developed analysis methods can be applied to investigate converted-wave imaging potential under different conditions, and to identify near-surface media situations that may yield converted-mode reflections with amplitudes comparable (at moderate angles of incidence and over a substantial incident angles range) to those of common-mode reflections. JF - The = Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering AU - Guy, Erich D Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 EP - unpaginated PB - Mete Oner, Stillwater, OK VL - 9 IS - Bundle D KW - P-waves KW - body waves KW - reflection KW - experimental studies KW - overburden KW - geophysical methods KW - prediction KW - elastic waves KW - seismic methods KW - models KW - seismic waves KW - S-waves KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50061669?accountid=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=Evaluation+of+near-surface+converted-mode+seismic+reflection+imaging+potential&rft.au=Guy%2C+Erich+D&rft.aulast=Guy&rft.aufirst=Erich&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=Bundle+D&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/2004/Ppr0440/Ppr0440.zip 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 - 12 N1 - PubXState - OK N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - body waves; elastic waves; experimental studies; geophysical methods; models; overburden; P-waves; prediction; reflection; S-waves; seismic methods; seismic waves ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISTA DEL SOL LNG TERMINAL PROJECT NEAR CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. (DOCKET NO. C04-395-000 AND CP-04-05-000). AN - 36433727; 11327 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation so a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facility on Corpus Christi Bay in the Gulf of Mexico near Corpus Christi, Texas is proposed. The applicants, Vista del Sol LNG Terminal LP and Vista del Sol Pipeline LP ,both affiliated of Exxon Mobile Corporation, would construct and operate the terminal and a related pipeline. Energy demand in Texas and the United States has been growing and continues to grow steadily. The Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, estimates that total energy consumption in the United States will increase from 98 quadrillion British units (Btss) per year in 2002 to 136 quadrillion Btss in 2025. The system would transport up to 1.4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) of imported natural gas to the United States market. The LNG terminal facilities would include a ship unloading facility with berthing capacities for two LNG ships with cargo capacities of up to 250,00 cubic meters, three 155,000 cubic meter full containment LNG storage tanks, vaporization equipment capable of an average send out capacity of 1.1 Bfcd and a maximum send out capacity of 1.4 BFCD; and ancillary utilities, building, and service facilities. The natural gas pipelines would include 25.3 mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas send out pipeline and associated pipeline support facilities, include six meter stations and interconnects with nine existing pipelines systems, one pig launcher, ad one pig receiver. Certain ancillary pipeline ,which do not fall under the certificate, would include lateral pipeline and pipeline associated with three interconnects, two overhead transmission lines, a utility substation, and a water line. In addition to the applicants' proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponing the action, LMG terminal system site alternatives, dredged material disposal alternatives, and pipeline system and route alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicants would provide an additional source of firm, long-term, and competitively priced natural gas to south Texas and the broader United States market. The terminal project would employ an average of 64 workers, including 72 full-time employees for operations of the facilities. Annual permanent wages for these employees would amount to $3.5 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal and pipelines would affect 780.4 acres of land and water. Construction of the terminal would require 310.8 acres, including 44.8 acres of open water for maneuvering area and marine terminal. Approximately 309.5 acres would be required for operation of the terminal, and 155.5 acres for permanent easement along the pipeline and laterals. The facilities would displace 25.8 acres of wetlands or submerged aquatic vegetation, including 24.5 acres at the LNG terminal site and 1.3 acres along the pipeline route. Essential fish habitat for post larval and juvenile pike shrimp, red drum and sub adult Spanish mackerel would be displaced. A total of 21 federally listed species occur in south Texas and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The terminal and pipelines would traverse a area affected by seismic activity. Approximately 7.8 million cubic years of soils and sediment would be excavated or dredged for the creation of the marine terminal. The pipeline would cross 20 perennial surface water bodies and 18 intermittent water bodies, the majority of which are road and irrigation ditches/canals. The storage tanks and other facilities associated with the project would degrade visual aesthetics. Cultural resource investigations have et to be completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act Amendment of 1976 43 U.S.C. 1241), Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.), JF - EPA number: 040591, 2004, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0716D KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Irrigation KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Sediment Control KW - Shellfish KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Corpus Christi Bay KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Coastal Zone Management Act Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36433727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISTA+DEL+SOL+LNG+TERMINAL+PROJECT+NEAR+CORPUS+CHRISTI%2C+TEXAS.+%28DOCKET+NO.+C04-395-000+AND+CP-04-05-000%29.&rft.title=VISTA+DEL+SOL+LNG+TERMINAL+PROJECT+NEAR+CORPUS+CHRISTI%2C+TEXAS.+%28DOCKET+NO.+C04-395-000+AND+CP-04-05-000%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 - Final. Preparation date: 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILL CREEK FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO. AN - 36414203; 11310 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 to 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 re-evaluation and further analysis in 1998. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft 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 continue 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 to 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, the 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: 040571, 004, 2004 PY - 2004 KW - Urban and Social Programs 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/36414203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2004-01-01&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND, FROM SR 1104 (BEACH DRIVE) TO NC 211, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2231201; T.I.P. NO. R-2245). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND, FROM SR 1104 (BEACH DRIVE) TO NC 211, BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2231201; T.I.P. NO. R-2245). AN - 36370806; 11260-040262_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of highway facilities to extend from the intersection of State Route (SR) 1104 (Beach Drive) and SR 1105 (Middleton Avenue) to North Carolina (NC) 211 in Brunswick County, North Carolina is proposed. The project would provide a second vehicular access route to the town of Oak Island by widening SR 1105 between the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intra-coastal Waterway (AIWW) or SR 1190 between SR 1105 and the AIWW. Historically, the county has rated the second bridge to Oak Island as one of the most important transportation projects in the county. Existing and projected traffic volumes, safety considerations, and inadequate highway capacity for evacuations from the island are the chief considerations in forwarding the proposal. In addition the project would include the construction of a new high-rise bridge over the AIWW to the mainland. Improvements on the island would include providing a two-lane facility from SR 1104 to SR 1190 (East Oak Island Drive), which would transition to five lanes and then to a four-lane section on the bridge over the AIWW, after which it would provide a four-lane facility to NC 211 at SR 1500 (Midway Road). The project could include upgrading of SR 1112 (Sunset Harbor Road) to NC 211. Five alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative (Alternative A), were considered in the draft EIS. This abbreviated final EIS, which includes errata for the draft EIS, a description of the preferred alternative, and comments and responses to comments on the draft EIS, indicates that the preferred alternative. Estimated costs of roadway construction, structure construction, and rights-of-way acquisition are estimated at $17.2 million, $9.8 million, and $5.4 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new crossing and associated facilities would allow the county to accommodate expected traffic volumes to and from the island for the foreseeable future in a safe and efficient manner. The bridge would also increase the island's evacuation capacity during emergencies, particularly hurricanes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would displace seven residences as well as 20 acres of pine plantation, 8.3 acres of longleaf pine, up to 14 acres of Pocosin forest, 2.1 acres of bottomland hardwood stands, and 16.1 acres of wetlands. In addition, the project would displace seven to 59 acres of prime and unique farmland. The highway facilities would traverse five streams. Traffic-generated noise would impact 38 sensitive receptors regardless of the alternative selected. 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 02-0306D, Volume 26, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 040262, 428 pages and maps, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-02-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Coastal Zones KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Hurricanes KW - Islands KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - North Carolina 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/36370806?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+BRIDGE+TO+OAK+ISLAND%2C+FROM+SR+1104+%28BEACH+DRIVE%29+TO+NC+211%2C+BRUNSWICK+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+8.2231201%3B+T.I.P.+NO.+R-2245%29.&rft.title=SECOND+BRIDGE+TO+OAK+ISLAND%2C+FROM+SR+1104+%28BEACH+DRIVE%29+TO+NC+211%2C+BRUNSWICK+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28STATE+PROJECT+NO.+8.2231201%3B+T.I.P.+NO.+R-2245%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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISTA DEL SOL LNG TERMINAL PROJECT NEAR CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. (DOCKET NO. C04-395-000 AND CP-04-05-000). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - VISTA DEL SOL LNG TERMINAL PROJECT NEAR CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. (DOCKET NO. C04-395-000 AND CP-04-05-000). AN - 36368641; 11327-040591_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation so a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facility on Corpus Christi Bay in the Gulf of Mexico near Corpus Christi, Texas is proposed. The applicants, Vista del Sol LNG Terminal LP and Vista del Sol Pipeline LP ,both affiliated of Exxon Mobile Corporation, would construct and operate the terminal and a related pipeline. Energy demand in Texas and the United States has been growing and continues to grow steadily. The Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, estimates that total energy consumption in the United States will increase from 98 quadrillion British units (Btss) per year in 2002 to 136 quadrillion Btss in 2025. The system would transport up to 1.4 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) of imported natural gas to the United States market. The LNG terminal facilities would include a ship unloading facility with berthing capacities for two LNG ships with cargo capacities of up to 250,00 cubic meters, three 155,000 cubic meter full containment LNG storage tanks, vaporization equipment capable of an average send out capacity of 1.1 Bfcd and a maximum send out capacity of 1.4 BFCD; and ancillary utilities, building, and service facilities. The natural gas pipelines would include 25.3 mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas send out pipeline and associated pipeline support facilities, include six meter stations and interconnects with nine existing pipelines systems, one pig launcher, ad one pig receiver. Certain ancillary pipeline ,which do not fall under the certificate, would include lateral pipeline and pipeline associated with three interconnects, two overhead transmission lines, a utility substation, and a water line. In addition to the applicants' proposal, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative, postponing the action, LMG terminal system site alternatives, dredged material disposal alternatives, and pipeline system and route alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The applicants would provide an additional source of firm, long-term, and competitively priced natural gas to south Texas and the broader United States market. The terminal project would employ an average of 64 workers, including 72 full-time employees for operations of the facilities. Annual permanent wages for these employees would amount to $3.5 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The terminal and pipelines would affect 780.4 acres of land and water. Construction of the terminal would require 310.8 acres, including 44.8 acres of open water for maneuvering area and marine terminal. Approximately 309.5 acres would be required for operation of the terminal, and 155.5 acres for permanent easement along the pipeline and laterals. The facilities would displace 25.8 acres of wetlands or submerged aquatic vegetation, including 24.5 acres at the LNG terminal site and 1.3 acres along the pipeline route. Essential fish habitat for post larval and juvenile pike shrimp, red drum and sub adult Spanish mackerel would be displaced. A total of 21 federally listed species occur in south Texas and the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The terminal and pipelines would traverse a area affected by seismic activity. Approximately 7.8 million cubic years of soils and sediment would be excavated or dredged for the creation of the marine terminal. The pipeline would cross 20 perennial surface water bodies and 18 intermittent water bodies, the majority of which are road and irrigation ditches/canals. The storage tanks and other facilities associated with the project would degrade visual aesthetics. Cultural resource investigations have et to be completed. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act Amendment of 1976 43 U.S.C. 1241), Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)), 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.), JF - EPA number: 040591, 2004, 2004 PY - 2004 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0716D KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Earthquakes KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Fuel Storage KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Irrigation KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Sediment Control KW - Shellfish KW - Site Planning KW - Streams KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transmission Lines KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Corpus Christi Bay KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Coastal Zone Management Act Amendment of 1976, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Pubic Convenience and Necessity KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISTA+DEL+SOL+LNG+TERMINAL+PROJECT+NEAR+CORPUS+CHRISTI%2C+TEXAS.+%28DOCKET+NO.+C04-395-000+AND+CP-04-05-000%29.&rft.title=VISTA+DEL+SOL+LNG+TERMINAL+PROJECT+NEAR+CORPUS+CHRISTI%2C+TEXAS.+%28DOCKET+NO.+C04-395-000+AND+CP-04-05-000%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 - Final. Preparation date: 2004 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Microbial Community Composition Near Depleted Uranium Impact Points AN - 19931816; 6110853 AB - Military training activities can result in the deposition of depleted uranium (DU) into surface soils. Mechanisms of introduction include the generation of dust from firing and impact as well as the eventual corrosion of projectile fragments and unexploded ordnance. Microorganisms in surface soils have the potential to affect the transport of DU by direct binding of the metal to the cell surface, by altering near field soil chemistry that affects metal solubility, and by microbially influenced corrosion. We investigated the response (in terms of community composition) of a native soil microbiota to the presence of DU in an arid environment. Bacteria in soils outside of the test area were challenged in dilute media with "yellow cake" or U sub(3)O sub(8). At concentrations of 200 to 20,000 mg L super(-1) only species of Bacillus were identified. In situ characterizations (by PLFA analysis) of exposed site soils showed an enrichment in sulfate reducing bacterial (i17:1w7c up 39%) and Bacillus species (a15:0 up 35%) biomarkers. Three types of microbial communities were defined (as PLFA profiles) using exploratory statistics and related to three different levels of DU exposure. The community types were then statistically corresponded to site soil chemistry. Observed differences in site soil chemistry were attributed to munitions firing since enrichments (unexposed to exposed) were observed in the minerals magnesium (increase of similar to 18 mg kg super(-1)), potassium (increase of similar to 46 mg kg super(-1)) and sulfur (increase of similar to 12 mg kg super(-1)), all constituents of munitions residues. Increased concentrations of these minerals corresponded with a community type that was associated with an area of extensive DU round use. JF - Journal of Soil Contamination AU - Ringelberg, D B AU - Reynolds, C M AU - Karr, L AD - U.S. Army ERDC-CRREL, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH 03755, USA, David.B.Ringelberg@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 563 EP - 577 VL - 13 IS - 6 SN - 1058-8337, 1058-8337 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology; Pollution Abstracts KW - Sulfates KW - Sulfur KW - Cell surface KW - Heavy metals KW - Arid environments KW - Statistical analysis KW - Media (enrichment) KW - Dust KW - Soil microorganisms KW - Uranium KW - Military KW - Bacillus KW - Metals KW - Solubility KW - Soil chemistry KW - Potassium KW - biomarkers KW - Sulfate KW - Soil pollution KW - Depleted uranium KW - Community composition KW - Deserts KW - Cakes KW - Radioisotopes KW - Microorganisms KW - Corrosion KW - Magnesium KW - Minerals KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION KW - A 01300:Methods KW - J 02300:Methods UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19931816?accountid=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=Journal+of+Soil+Contamination&rft.atitle=Microbial+Community+Composition+Near+Depleted+Uranium+Impact+Points&rft.au=Ringelberg%2C+D+B%3BReynolds%2C+C+M%3BKarr%2C+L&rft.aulast=Ringelberg&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=563&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Soil+Contamination&rft.issn=10588337&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F15320380490897669 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-25 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Sulfur; Cell surface; Solubility; Heavy metals; Arid environments; Media (enrichment); Soil chemistry; Statistical analysis; Potassium; biomarkers; Dust; Sulfate; Soil microorganisms; Soil pollution; Community composition; Cakes; Uranium; Corrosion; Microorganisms; Magnesium; Minerals; Sulfates; Metals; Depleted uranium; Deserts; Radioisotopes; Military; Bacillus DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15320380490897669 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Review of Ordinary High Water Mark Indicators for Delineating Arid Streams in the Southwestern United States AN - 19443945; 7170628 AB - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) delineates the jurisdictional extent of wetlands and other "Waters of the United States" (WoUS) under Corps and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations implementing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). As part of this responsibility, Corps districts in the southwestern United States and elsewhere must delineate the extent of WoUS in arid areas, including arid-land stream channels. In non-tidal waters lacking adjacent wetlands, Corps jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Unlike wetlands, for which there are criteria for hydrology, soils, and vegetation specified in a national wetland delineation manual, there is no hydro-logic definition of ordinary high water (OHW), and the identification of WoUS relies entirely on physical features of stream channels. This literature review investigates the climatic and regional conditions controlling hydrologic discharges in arid-land streams and the resulting physical features that develop within channels and floodplains. The review covers three main features associated with arid stream systems that might be useful for delineation purposes: hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, and vegetation. Based on the reviews, certain physical features were selected as potential OHWM indicators and were categorized by location above, at, or below the OHW line. To support the identification of OHW, these potential indicators are intended to be tested in selected locations across the Southwest to identify consistent and reliable indicators of the OHWM. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Lichvar, R W AU - Wakeley, J S Y1 - 2004/01// PY - 2004 DA - January 2004 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Jurisdiction KW - Climate KW - Indicators KW - Vegetation KW - Freshwater KW - Streams KW - High Water Mark KW - Environmental protection KW - Channels KW - USA KW - Geomorphology KW - Flood plains KW - Literature reviews KW - Reviews KW - Hydrology KW - High tide KW - Wetlands KW - Manuals KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19443945?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=Lichvar%2C+R+W%3BWakeley%2C+J+S&rft.aulast=Lichvar&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Review+of+Ordinary+High+Water+Mark+Indicators+for+Delineating+Arid+Streams+in+the+Southwestern+United+States&rft.title=Review+of+Ordinary+High+Water+Mark+Indicators+for+Delineating+Arid+Streams+in+the+Southwestern+United+States&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 - Appropriate vertical discretization of Richards' equation for two- dimensional watershed-scale modelling AN - 19404656; 5830635 AB - A number of watershed-scale hydrological models include Richards' equation (RE) solutions, but the literature is sparse on information as to the appropriate application of RE at the watershed scale. In most published applications of RE in distributed watershed-scale hydrological modelling, coarse vertical resolutions are used to decrease the computational burden. Compared to point- or field-scale studies, application at the watershed scale is complicated by diverse runoff production mechanisms, groundwater effects on runoff production, runon phenomena and heterogeneous watershed characteristics. An essential element of the numerical solution of RE is that the solution converges as the spatial resolution increases. Spatial convergence studies can be used to identify the proper resolution that accurately describes the solution with maximum computational efficiency, when using physically realistic parameter values. In this study, spatial convergence studies are conducted using the two- dimensional, distributed-parameter, gridded surface subsurface hydrological analysis (GSSHA) model, which solves RE to simulate vadose zone fluxes. Tests to determine if the required discretization is strongly a function of dominant runoff production mechanism are conducted using data from two very different watersheds, the Hortonian Goodwin Creek Experimental Watershed and the non- Hortonian Muddy Brook watershed. Total infiltration, stream flow and evapotranspiration for the entire simulation period are used to compute comparison statistics. The influences of upper and lower boundary conditions on the solution accuracy are also explored. Results indicate that to simulate hydrological fluxes accurately at both watersheds small vertical cell sizes, of the order of 1 cm, are required near the soil surface, but not throughout the soil column. The appropriate choice of approximations for calculating the near soil-surface unsaturated hydraulic conductivity can yield modest increases in the required cell size. Results for both watersheds are quite similar, even though the soils and runoff production mechanisms differ greatly between the two catchments. JF - Hydrological Processes AU - Downer, C W AU - Ogden, F L AD - Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, downerc@wes.army.mil Y1 - 2004///0, PY - 2004 DA - 0, 2004 SP - 1 EP - 22 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Baffins Lane Chichester W. Sussex PO19 1UD UK, [mailto:customer@wiley.co.uk] VL - 18 IS - 1 SN - 0885-6087, 0885-6087 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts KW - hydrology KW - hydrological modeling KW - Richards' equation KW - GSSHA KW - CASC2D KW - spatial convergence KW - vadose zone KW - Catchment area KW - Mathematical models KW - Ecological distribution KW - Streamflow KW - Evapotranspiration KW - Watershed hydrology KW - Freshwater KW - Watersheds KW - Permeability Coefficient KW - Boundary conditions KW - Stream flow KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Numerical models KW - Watershed modelling KW - USA, Mississippi, Goodwin Creek KW - Infiltration KW - Hydrologic Data KW - Runoff KW - Hydrologic models KW - Modelling KW - M2 556:General (556) KW - Q2 09127:General papers on resources KW - SW 0810:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19404656?accountid=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=Appropriate+vertical+discretization+of+Richards%27+equation+for+two-+dimensional+watershed-scale+modelling&rft.au=Downer%2C+C+W%3BOgden%2C+F+L&rft.aulast=Downer&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hydrological+Processes&rft.issn=08856087&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fhyp.1306 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Catchment area; Mathematical models; Ecological distribution; Evapotranspiration; Watersheds; Runoff; Modelling; Stream flow; Numerical models; Watershed modelling; Watershed hydrology; Boundary conditions; Hydrologic models; Hydrologic Models; Infiltration; Streamflow; Hydrologic Data; Permeability Coefficient; USA, Mississippi, Goodwin Creek; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1306 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Radiation data corrections for snow-covered sensors: are they needed for snowmelt modelling? AN - 18062026; 5873248 AB - Up-looking solar and atmospheric radiation sensors at remote and quasi- remote weather stations are typically intermittently covered by snow in the winter. Numerous years of radiation data compromised in this way have been collected and archived at the Snow Research Station (SRS) in Danville, Vermont, and undoubtedly at numerous other research stations around the globe. Potential users of these archived data must question whether the data have value for their purpose, whether they can be corrected, what methods can be used to correct them, and perhaps most importantly, will time-consuming correction efforts be justified by improved model performance. To answer these questions, both simple and elaborate methods of correcting incident solar and atmospheric radiation data were developed and applied to the 2001 snow season radiation data collected at the SRS. Snow-affected incident solar radiation was estimated with reflected solar radiation measurements and either a simple albedo assumption or an albedo model. The equations of Idso, Brutsaert, Brunt, and Anderson and Baker were considered for correcting atmospheric radiation. The technique of Anderson and Baker was a good practical choice for this site, when used with a station offset, clearness index, and clear-sky radiation model. Energy balance snowmelt calculations were made with SNTHERM, an internationally known and publicly available physically based snow process model. There was little justification for more than minimal corrections to radiation measurements for the presence of snow on radiation sensors when modelling snow depth, water equivalent, or melt efflux, because errors caused by snow-covered solar and atmospheric radiation sensors largely offset one another. More elaborate efforts to correct both solar and atmospheric radiation data would be justified when correct quantification of individual snowpack energy components is important. JF - Hydrological Processes AU - Melloh, R A AU - Hall, T J AU - Bailey, R AD - US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755, USA, rae.a.melloh@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 1113 EP - 1126 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Baffins Lane Chichester W. Sussex PO19 1UD UK, [mailto:customer@wiley.co.uk], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/] VL - 18 IS - 6 SN - 0885-6087, 0885-6087 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Remote Sensing KW - Snowpack KW - Solar radiation data KW - Sensors KW - Solar radiation KW - Snow cover observation techniques KW - Radiation measurement corrections KW - Radiation KW - Clearness index KW - Radiation models KW - Snowmelt models KW - Atmospheric radiation KW - Data Collections KW - Albedo KW - Snowmelt calculation KW - Snow cover KW - Model Studies KW - Energy balance KW - Snow cover water equivalent KW - Snowmelt KW - Radiation measurements KW - Radiation data KW - USA, Vermont KW - Solar radiation measurements KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - M2 551.578.46:Snow cover (including depth, temperature and density) KW - M2 551.501:Methods of Observation/Computations (551.501) KW - SW 0820:Snow, ice and frost UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18062026?accountid=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=Radiation+data+corrections+for+snow-covered+sensors%3A+are+they+needed+for+snowmelt+modelling%3F&rft.au=Melloh%2C+R+A%3BHall%2C+T+J%3BBailey%2C+R&rft.aulast=Melloh&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1113&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hydrological+Processes&rft.issn=08856087&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fhyp.5510 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Snowpack; Sensors; Snowmelt; Model Studies; Radiation; Remote Sensing; Data Collections; USA, Vermont; Atmospheric radiation; Solar radiation; Radiation data; Albedo; Solar radiation data; Snow cover water equivalent; Snowmelt calculation; Snow cover; Clearness index; Solar radiation measurements; Snowmelt models; Radiation measurements; Energy balance; Radiation models; Snow cover observation techniques; Radiation measurement corrections DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5510 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A theory of pressure sensor performance in snow AN - 18040236; 5830638 AB - A theory of pressure sensor response in snow is derived and used to examine the sources of measurement errors in snow water equivalent (SWE) pressure sensors. Measurement errors in SWE are caused by differences in the compressibility of the pressure sensor and the adjacent snow layer, which produces a shear stress along the perimeter of the sensor. When the temperature at the base of the snow cover equals 0 degree C, differences in the snowmelt rate between the snow-SWE sensor interface and the adjacent snow-soil interface may also produce a shear stress along the sensor's perimeter. This shear stress perturbs the pressure field over the sensor, producing SWE measurement errors. Snow creep acts to reduce shear stresses along the SWE sensor's perimeter at a rate that is inversely proportional to the snow viscosity. For sustained periods of differential snowmelt, a difference in the mass of snow over the sensor compared with the surrounding soil will develop, producing additional permanent errors in SWE measurements. The theory indicates that SWE pressure sensor performance can be improved by designing a sensor with a high Young's modulus (low compressibility), low aspect ratio, large diameter and thermal properties that match those of the surrounding soil. Simulations of SWE pressure sensor errors using the theory are in close agreement with observed errors and may provide a means to correct historical SWE measurements for use in hydrological hindcast or climate studies. JF - Hydrological Processes AU - Johnson, J B AD - U. S. Army ERDC Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, P.O Box 35170, Ft Wainwright, AK 99703-0170, USA, jjohnson@crrel.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 53 EP - 64 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Baffins Lane Chichester W. Sussex PO19 1UD UK, [mailto:customer@wiley.co.uk], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/] VL - 18 IS - 1 SN - 0885-6087, 0885-6087 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Pressure-measuring Instruments KW - Snow melting KW - Shear stress KW - Sensors KW - Snow measurement corrections KW - Automatic pressure sensors KW - Viscosity KW - Numerical simulations KW - Climatic Data KW - Snow cover water equivalent KW - Hydrology KW - Snow-Water Equivalent KW - M2 551.579:Hydrometeorology (551.579) KW - M2 551.578.46:Snow cover (including depth, temperature and density) KW - SW 0820:Snow, ice and frost UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18040236?accountid=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=A+theory+of+pressure+sensor+performance+in+snow&rft.au=Johnson%2C+J+B&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=53&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hydrological+Processes&rft.issn=08856087&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fhyp.1310 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Snow-Water Equivalent; Sensors; Pressure-measuring Instruments; Hydrology; Climatic Data; Shear stress; Snow melting; Snow cover water equivalent; Numerical simulations; Viscosity; Automatic pressure sensors; Snow measurement corrections DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1310 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The detection and correction of snow water equivalent pressure sensor errors AN - 17736951; 6114497 AB - Snow water equivalent (SWE) sensors can experience errors when the base of the snow cover is at the melting temperature, the snow can support shear stresses (assumed to occur at densities greater than 200 kg m super(-3)), and the rate of snowmelt on the sensor is different than on the surrounding ground. Either undermeasurement or overmeasurement errors may occur at critical times when the snow cover transitions from winter to spring conditions and at the start of periods of rapid snowmelt. Parameters to determine the onset of SWE sensor undermeasurement errors are defined by a negative rate of change for SWE, a negative rate of change for snow density, and an increasing snow depth. For the onset of overmeasurement errors, the rate of change for SWE will be positive while snow depth decreases and the snow density rate of change exceeds a defined positive threshold. When the snow temperature and density error conditions and the three under-or over-measurement error-indicator parameters are satisfied at the same time, an SWE sensor error has started. Real-time correction of the errors is done by multiplying the average snow cover density, set at the start of the error, with the snow depth. Once the error event ends, when the corrected SWE and SWE sensor data intersect, SWE is again determined from SWE sensor measurements. SWE sensor errors were accurately detected and corrected for five different sensors located in maritime and intermountain climatic zones when high-quality SWE sensor, snow or air temperature, and snow depth measurements were available. Implementation of the error detection and correction method requires simultaneous measurements of SWE, snow depth, and snow temperature near the ground. Improved error correction can be achieved by incorporating precipitation data and estimates of snow density due to retained rain or snow melt. JF - Hydrological Processes AU - Johnson, Jerome B AU - Marks, Danny AD - US Army ERDC Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Ft Wainwright, AK 99703, USA, Jerome.b.johnson@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 3513 EP - 3525 PB - John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Baffins Lane Chichester W. Sussex PO19 1UD UK, [mailto:customer@wiley.co.uk], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/] VL - 18 IS - 18 SN - 0885-6087, 0885-6087 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Snow melting KW - Air Temperature KW - Springs KW - Sensors KW - Snow cover depth KW - Temperature KW - Snow Depth KW - Snow Cover KW - Precipitation KW - Errors KW - Melting KW - Water content of snow estimation KW - Climatic Zones KW - Snow cover water equivalent KW - Snow cover densities KW - Snowmelt KW - Shear Stress KW - Snow-Water Equivalent KW - Rain KW - Snow Density KW - M2 551.579:Hydrometeorology (551.579) KW - SW 0820:Snow, ice and frost UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17736951?accountid=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=The+detection+and+correction+of+snow+water+equivalent+pressure+sensor+errors&rft.au=Johnson%2C+Jerome+B%3BMarks%2C+Danny&rft.aulast=Johnson&rft.aufirst=Jerome&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=3513&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Hydrological+Processes&rft.issn=08856087&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fhyp.5795 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Errors; Sensors; Snow-Water Equivalent; Snow Depth; Snow Density; Snow Cover; Temperature; Snowmelt; Shear Stress; Precipitation; Springs; Climatic Zones; Melting; Rain; Air Temperature; Snow cover water equivalent; Snow melting; Water content of snow estimation; Snow cover depth; Snow cover densities DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5795 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Wave Transformation Modeling at Cape Fear River Entrance, North Carolina AN - 17620586; 6120212 AB - Wave transformation in the region of Cape Fear, NC, is investigated through field measurements and application of the numerical spectral wave model STWAVE. Field data on offshore and nearshore directional waves, high-resolution bathymetry, tide, and wind were collected starting in the fall of 2000. The applicability of using offshore gauge data as input along the model boundary was evaluated by additional modeling on a coarse grid extending seaward beyond the influence of irregular shelf bathymetry. Model evaluation is presented based on three storm events. For nearshore model and gauge results paired in time, the root-mean-square error in wave height is 0.2-0.5 m and in wave direction is 14- 24 deg. The relative importance of accurate bathymetry, tide, wind, nonlinear wave-wave interactions, and spectral shape (measured versus parameterized) are examined with model sensitivity studies. Impacts on potential longshore transport computations are also considered. High-resolution bathymetry is found to be most significant in reducing model versus gauge differences. Use of parametric input spectra gave comparable results to input of measured two- dimensional spectra for the selected storms. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Thompson, Edward F AU - Smith, Jane Mckee AU - Miller, Herman C AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 1135 EP - 1154 PB - Coastal Education & Research Foundation, Box 21087 Royal Palm Beach FL 33421-0187 USA VL - 20 IS - 4 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - O 2010:Physical Oceanography KW - Q2 02168:Wind waves KW - SW 0810:General KW - M2 551.466:Ocean Waves and Tides (551.466) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17620586?accountid=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+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Wave+Transformation+Modeling+at+Cape+Fear+River+Entrance%2C+North+Carolina&rft.au=Thompson%2C+Edward+F%3BSmith%2C+Jane+Mckee%3BMiller%2C+Herman+C&rft.aulast=Thompson&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1135&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&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 - Coastal Bluff Erosion-Numerical Model using Monte Carlo Simulation Technique and Sunamura's Equation AN - 17290774; 6089124 AB - The shoreline of the cities of Encinitas and Solana Beach in San Diego County, California is characterized by a narrow shore platform in front of coastal bluffs up to 25 m high, and comprised of loosely cemented material. A deficiency in sand supplied to the littoral system has resulted in the loss of the protective beach strand, resulting in direct wave attack at the toe of the bluffs (USACOE-LAD 1986). This causes undermining of the bluffs as the toe is gradually eroded landward of the drip line. Eventually the undermining reaches a critical depth and large blocks of the upper bluff collapse. This occurs episodically, in large increments, followed by long periods of little or no bluff retreat. Past attempts to assess bluff retreat for use in planning and engineering depended on the average erosion rate over a project design life, generated using existing deterministic synoptic summaries (USACOE - LAD 1996). An annualized retreat rate essentially accounts for the longterm average effect of various episodic failures combined with periods of little or no erosion activity. As a result, it tends to yield a misleading picture of coastal cliff erosion and the resulting damage to bluff-top development. In addition, it does not characterize the mechanism whereby wave attack at the bluff base undermines the bluff face and causes a block failure at the top, often months after the wave attack has occurred. Therefore, a numerical model was developed which includes a "Monte Carlo" simulation technique to characterize the blufftop retreat in response to the bluff toe erosion. A database of historical upper bluff failures was used to generate a "pseudo" probability density function of upper bluff failure sizes in response to notch erosion. This approach obviates the need for detailed geological analysis of the internal bluff structure and composition and other factors affecting upper bluff block failure size and timing. The average annual retreat rate predicted by the model compares reasonably well with average rates computed using other methods, but the statistical approach used in this methodology provides a more accurate and useful way of capturing and modeling the uncertainty inherent in natural, non-linear systems, and provides planners and engineers with a more sophisticated risk management tool. However, extensive site specific data on wave energy and erosion are required for accurate model calibration, to account for localized differences in bluff geology, hydrology, and other factors that influence when and where collapses occur. JF - Shore & Beach AU - Williams, B M AU - Lu, Chia Chi AU - Qin, Wenkai AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 915 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90017, USA, bwilliams@spl.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 3 EP - 9 VL - 72 IS - 3 SN - 0037-4237, 0037-4237 KW - Bluffs KW - Monte Carlo simulation KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Marine KW - Q5 01522:Protective measures and control KW - O 6060:Coastal Zone Resources and Management KW - Q2 02271:Coastal morphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17290774?accountid=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=Coastal+Bluff+Erosion-Numerical+Model+using+Monte+Carlo+Simulation+Technique+and+Sunamura%27s+Equation&rft.au=Williams%2C+B+M%3BLu%2C+Chia+Chi%3BQin%2C+Wenkai&rft.aulast=Williams&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=3&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Screening Columbia and Willamette River sediments for CYP1A-inducing compounds with a biomarker assay (EPA 4425) AN - 1151910484; 2012-098191 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Anderson, J W AU - Sherman, T AU - Siipola, M Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 213 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - United States KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - concentration KW - toxic materials KW - monitoring KW - Columbia River KW - surface water KW - PCBs KW - pollution KW - dioxins KW - dredged materials KW - Oregon KW - organic compounds KW - sediments KW - hydrocarbons KW - polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - chemical composition KW - Willamette River KW - fluvial environment KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151910484?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=Screening+Columbia+and+Willamette+River+sediments+for+CYP1A-inducing+compounds+with+a+biomarker+assay+%28EPA+4425%29&rft.au=Anderson%2C+J+W%3BSherman%2C+T%3BSiipola%2C+M&rft.aulast=Anderson&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=213&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fourth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - ISSN 1087-8939 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aromatic hydrocarbons; chemical composition; chlorinated hydrocarbons; Columbia River; concentration; dioxins; dredged materials; fluvial environment; halogenated hydrocarbons; hydrocarbons; monitoring; Oregon; organic compounds; PCBs; pollution; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; sediments; surface water; toxic materials; United States; Willamette River ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The use of biological testing in sediment management AN - 1151910341; 2012-098078 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Bridges, T S AU - Stronkhorst, J AU - Porebski, L AU - Bjornestad, E AU - Buceta Miller, J L AU - DelValls Casillas, T A AU - Kuwae, T AU - Maass, V AU - Murray, L Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 31 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - concentration KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - bioassays KW - decision-making KW - bioavailability KW - measurement KW - dredged materials KW - bioaccumulation KW - environmental management KW - physical properties KW - toxicity KW - sediments KW - chemical properties KW - testing KW - risk assessment KW - sediment quality KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151910341?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=The+use+of+biological+testing+in+sediment+management&rft.au=Bridges%2C+T+S%3BStronkhorst%2C+J%3BPorebski%2C+L%3BBjornestad%2C+E%3BBuceta+Miller%2C+J+L%3BDelValls+Casillas%2C+T+A%3BKuwae%2C+T%3BMaass%2C+V%3BMurray%2C+L&rft.aulast=Bridges&rft.aufirst=T&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=31&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fourth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - ISSN 1087-8939 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bioaccumulation; bioassays; bioavailability; chemical properties; concentration; decision-making; dredged materials; environmental management; measurement; physical properties; pollutants; pollution; risk assessment; sediment quality; sediments; testing; toxicity ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sensitivity and performance of chronic sediment toxicity tests in dredged material management AN - 1151910269; 2012-098075 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Kennedy, A J AU - Farrar, J D AU - Steevens, J A Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 30 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - United States KW - toxic materials KW - experimental studies KW - benthic taxa KW - biomass KW - New York Harbor KW - harbors KW - pollution KW - bioavailability KW - dredged materials KW - waste management KW - New York KW - toxicity KW - tests KW - sensitivity analysis KW - sediments KW - testing KW - microorganisms KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151910269?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=Sensitivity+and+performance+of+chronic+sediment+toxicity+tests+in+dredged+material+management&rft.au=Kennedy%2C+A+J%3BFarrar%2C+J+D%3BSteevens%2C+J+A&rft.aulast=Kennedy&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=30&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fourth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - ISSN 1087-8939 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - benthic taxa; bioavailability; biomass; dredged materials; experimental studies; harbors; microorganisms; New York; New York Harbor; pollution; sediments; sensitivity analysis; testing; tests; toxic materials; toxicity; United States; waste management ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Field validation of chronic sublethal dredged materials laboratory bioassays; a 3 year summary AN - 1151910258; 2012-098074 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Moore, D W AU - Diener, D AU - Hester, B AU - Anghera, S AU - Farrar, D AU - Bridges, T S Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 30 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - concentration KW - experimental studies KW - benthic taxa KW - Crustacea KW - damage KW - pollution KW - bioassays KW - biota KW - dredged materials KW - bioaccumulation KW - Malacostraca KW - laboratory studies KW - habitat KW - Arthropoda KW - toxicity KW - Amphipoda KW - Mandibulata KW - sediments KW - chemical properties KW - Invertebrata KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151910258?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=Field+validation+of+chronic+sublethal+dredged+materials+laboratory+bioassays%3B+a+3+year+summary&rft.au=Moore%2C+D+W%3BDiener%2C+D%3BHester%2C+B%3BAnghera%2C+S%3BFarrar%2C+D%3BBridges%2C+T+S&rft.aulast=Moore&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=30&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fourth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - ISSN 1087-8939 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Amphipoda; Arthropoda; benthic taxa; bioaccumulation; bioassays; biota; chemical properties; concentration; Crustacea; damage; dredged materials; experimental studies; habitat; Invertebrata; laboratory studies; Malacostraca; Mandibulata; pollution; sediments; toxicity ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of acute and chronic toxicity methods for evaluating bay and estuarine sediments in California AN - 1151910243; 2012-098073 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Bay, S M AU - Greenstein, D J AU - Anderson, B S AU - Phillips, B M AU - Chandler, G T AU - Farrar, D AU - Ringwood, A H AU - Keppler, C J Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 29 EP - 30 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - United States KW - benthic taxa KW - sediment-water interface KW - Mytilus KW - Heterodonta KW - California KW - Malacostraca KW - San Francisco Bay KW - toxicity KW - Copepoda KW - sediments KW - Invertebrata KW - ecology KW - Mollusca KW - Veneroida KW - estuarine environment KW - sediment quality KW - toxic materials KW - monitoring KW - Crustacea KW - grain size KW - pollution KW - biota KW - Bivalvia KW - detection KW - Arthropoda KW - Amphipoda KW - Mandibulata KW - Veneridae KW - Mercenaria KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151910243?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+acute+and+chronic+toxicity+methods+for+evaluating+bay+and+estuarine+sediments+in+California&rft.au=Bay%2C+S+M%3BGreenstein%2C+D+J%3BAnderson%2C+B+S%3BPhillips%2C+B+M%3BChandler%2C+G+T%3BFarrar%2C+D%3BRingwood%2C+A+H%3BKeppler%2C+C+J&rft.aulast=Bay&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=29&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fourth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - ISSN 1087-8939 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Amphipoda; Arthropoda; benthic taxa; biota; Bivalvia; California; Copepoda; Crustacea; detection; ecology; estuarine environment; grain size; Heterodonta; Invertebrata; Malacostraca; Mandibulata; Mercenaria; Mollusca; monitoring; Mytilus; pollution; San Francisco Bay; sediment quality; sediment-water interface; sediments; toxic materials; toxicity; United States; Veneridae; Veneroida ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of methods for evaluating chronic toxicity in marine sediments AN - 1151909650; 2012-098274 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Greenstein, D J AU - Bay, S M AU - Anderson, B S AU - Phillips, B M AU - Chandler, G T AU - Farrar, J D AU - Ringwood, A H AU - Keppler, C J AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 313 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - United States KW - toxic materials KW - Crustacea KW - pollution KW - biota KW - bioaccumulation KW - California KW - Malacostraca KW - San Francisco Bay KW - detection KW - Arthropoda KW - toxicity KW - Amphipoda KW - marine environment KW - Mandibulata KW - California Bight KW - sediments KW - Invertebrata KW - ecology KW - sediment quality KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151909650?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=Comparison+of+methods+for+evaluating+chronic+toxicity+in+marine+sediments&rft.au=Greenstein%2C+D+J%3BBay%2C+S+M%3BAnderson%2C+B+S%3BPhillips%2C+B+M%3BChandler%2C+G+T%3BFarrar%2C+J+D%3BRingwood%2C+A+H%3BKeppler%2C+C+J%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Greenstein&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=313&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fouth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Amphipoda; Arthropoda; bioaccumulation; biota; California; California Bight; Crustacea; detection; ecology; Invertebrata; Malacostraca; Mandibulata; marine environment; pollution; San Francisco Bay; sediment quality; sediments; toxic materials; toxicity; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Weight-of-evidence ecological assessment of an urbanized river AN - 1151909222; 2012-098300 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Bleiler, J A AU - Davis, R AU - Archer, C AU - Mitchell, D AU - Mead, H AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 340 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - United States KW - soils KW - pollution KW - ecosystems KW - urbanization KW - biota KW - habitat KW - riparian environment KW - New England KW - drainage basins KW - risk assessment KW - ecology KW - military facilities KW - water resources KW - land use KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151909222?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=Weight-of-evidence+ecological+assessment+of+an+urbanized+river&rft.au=Bleiler%2C+J+A%3BDavis%2C+R%3BArcher%2C+C%3BMitchell%2C+D%3BMead%2C+H%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Bleiler&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=340&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fouth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - biota; drainage basins; ecology; ecosystems; habitat; land use; military facilities; New England; pollution; riparian environment; risk assessment; soils; United States; urbanization; water resources ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Probable historical atmospheric transport of mercury due to cinnabar roasting at Black Butte Mine (BBM) AN - 1151908874; 2012-098304 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Thom, B AU - Curtis, L R AU - Aitken, G AU - Briner, W AU - Britton, J AU - Sandahl, J AU - Villeneuve, D AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 342 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - United States KW - mines KW - concentration KW - toxic materials KW - mine waste KW - surface water KW - cinnabar KW - pollution KW - solubility KW - Oregon KW - transport KW - atmospheric transport KW - metals KW - Black Butte Mine KW - Willamette River KW - sulfides KW - point sources KW - abandoned mines KW - mercury KW - Cottage Grove Reservoir KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151908874?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=Probable+historical+atmospheric+transport+of+mercury+due+to+cinnabar+roasting+at+Black+Butte+Mine+%28BBM%29&rft.au=Thom%2C+B%3BCurtis%2C+L+R%3BAitken%2C+G%3BBriner%2C+W%3BBritton%2C+J%3BSandahl%2C+J%3BVilleneuve%2C+D%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Thom&rft.aufirst=B&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=342&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fouth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - abandoned mines; atmospheric transport; Black Butte Mine; cinnabar; concentration; Cottage Grove Reservoir; mercury; metals; mine waste; mines; Oregon; point sources; pollution; solubility; sulfides; surface water; toxic materials; transport; United States; Willamette River ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of TOC levels and grain size distributions on sediment DDT analysis and bioaccumulation potential AN - 1151908859; 2012-098302 JF - Abstracts - Annual Meeting - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) AU - Bodensteiner, S M AU - Wiechmann, M J AU - Zinkl, M E AU - McCloskey, J M AU - Word, J Q AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2004 PY - 2004 DA - 2004 SP - 341 PB - Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, [location varies] VL - 25 KW - chlorinated hydrocarbons KW - Vermes KW - organochlorine pesticides KW - ecosystems KW - bioaccumulation KW - sediments KW - Invertebrata KW - halogenated hydrocarbons KW - ecology KW - Polychaetia KW - Mollusca KW - chemical composition KW - insecticides KW - grain size KW - pollution KW - bioassays KW - Bivalvia KW - habitat KW - organic compounds KW - DDT KW - steady-state processes KW - coastal environment KW - pesticides KW - aquatic environment KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1151908859?accountid=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+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.atitle=Effects+of+TOC+levels+and+grain+size+distributions+on+sediment+DDT+analysis+and+bioaccumulation+potential&rft.au=Bodensteiner%2C+S+M%3BWiechmann%2C+M+J%3BZinkl%2C+M+E%3BMcCloskey%2C+J+M%3BWord%2C+J+Q%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Bodensteiner&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2004-01-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=&rft.spage=341&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+-+Annual+Meeting+-+Society+of+Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry+%28SETAC%29&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Fouth SETAC world congress and 25th annual meeting in North America N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-15 N1 - CODEN - #04767 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquatic environment; bioaccumulation; bioassays; Bivalvia; chemical composition; chlorinated hydrocarbons; coastal environment; DDT; ecology; ecosystems; grain size; habitat; halogenated hydrocarbons; insecticides; Invertebrata; Mollusca; organic compounds; organochlorine pesticides; pesticides; pollution; Polychaetia; sediments; steady-state processes; Vermes ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN DIEGO HARBOR CENTRAL NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36432387; 10547 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Central Navigation Channel facilities in San Diego Harbor, California is proposed. The Federal Central Navigation Channel provides safe navigation and access to marine terminals, marine-related industrial areas, and military installations. The channel is used by Navy ships enroute to the Naval Station San Diego and by commercial vessels transporting cargo to the Tenth Avenue and National City Marine Terminals. The facilities consist of the entrance, central, and South Bay channels, as well as anchorage and turning basins. Over the past two decades, the use of larger, deeper-draft ships has resulted in a need to provide deep-draft channels and berths at the harbor. Great opportunities for increasing efficiencies of existing operations present themselves through deeper channels that would allow the larger bulk ships to carry greater loads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended plan (Alternative 2) would involve deepening the central navigation channel and turning basin from the existing federal channel depth of 40 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW) to a depth of 42 feet below MLLW. Dredged material, estimated at 550,000 cubic meters, associated with the implementation of the plan would be deposited in the nearshore environment at Imperial Beach for beach nourishment. Relocation of a 69-kilovolt cable would be required as the cable is located within the proposed dredge footprint. The Port of San Diego would perform dredging of Tenth Marine Terminal Berths 10-3 to 10-6 to the design depth of 42 feet below MLLW, and conduct surface repair and stabilization of the existing seawall. Dredging by the Port would take place regardless of whether the recommended plan is implemented and there is considered a future without-project condition. Cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $5.26 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Channel deepening would significantly increase the capacity, efficiency, and operational safety of the harbor, increasing turning radii for ships and eliminating the need to lighten cargo ships prior to their entry into berthing areas. Enhanced movement of Navy ships would improve operational response in the event of a need for emergency military deployment, supporting the nation's increased need for international use of force. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos temporarily in the immediate vicinity of operations and displace benthic habitat permanently at disposal sites. Sediments released into the water column during dredging would contain contaminants that would be taken up by various species of fish. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1968 (79 Stat. 189, 1092), and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 030572, Volume I--102 pages, Volume II--613 pages, Volume III-391 pages, Volume IV--292 pages and maps, December 18, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Navigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - San Diego Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1968, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36432387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+DIEGO+HARBOR+CENTRAL+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL+DEEPENING%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+DIEGO+HARBOR+CENTRAL+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL+DEEPENING%2C+SAN+DIEGO%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: December 18, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN DIEGO HARBOR CENTRAL NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SAN DIEGO HARBOR CENTRAL NAVIGATION CHANNEL DEEPENING, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36349421; 10547-030572_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of the Central Navigation Channel facilities in San Diego Harbor, California is proposed. The Federal Central Navigation Channel provides safe navigation and access to marine terminals, marine-related industrial areas, and military installations. The channel is used by Navy ships enroute to the Naval Station San Diego and by commercial vessels transporting cargo to the Tenth Avenue and National City Marine Terminals. The facilities consist of the entrance, central, and South Bay channels, as well as anchorage and turning basins. Over the past two decades, the use of larger, deeper-draft ships has resulted in a need to provide deep-draft channels and berths at the harbor. Great opportunities for increasing efficiencies of existing operations present themselves through deeper channels that would allow the larger bulk ships to carry greater loads. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended plan (Alternative 2) would involve deepening the central navigation channel and turning basin from the existing federal channel depth of 40 feet below mean lower low water (MLLW) to a depth of 42 feet below MLLW. Dredged material, estimated at 550,000 cubic meters, associated with the implementation of the plan would be deposited in the nearshore environment at Imperial Beach for beach nourishment. Relocation of a 69-kilovolt cable would be required as the cable is located within the proposed dredge footprint. The Port of San Diego would perform dredging of Tenth Marine Terminal Berths 10-3 to 10-6 to the design depth of 42 feet below MLLW, and conduct surface repair and stabilization of the existing seawall. Dredging by the Port would take place regardless of whether the recommended plan is implemented and there is considered a future without-project condition. Cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $5.26 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Channel deepening would significantly increase the capacity, efficiency, and operational safety of the harbor, increasing turning radii for ships and eliminating the need to lighten cargo ships prior to their entry into berthing areas. Enhanced movement of Navy ships would improve operational response in the event of a need for emergency military deployment, supporting the nation's increased need for international use of force. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would destroy benthos temporarily in the immediate vicinity of operations and displace benthic habitat permanently at disposal sites. Sediments released into the water column during dredging would contain contaminants that would be taken up by various species of fish. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1968 (79 Stat. 189, 1092), and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 030572, Volume I--102 pages, Volume II--613 pages, Volume III-391 pages, Volume IV--292 pages and maps, December 18, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Navigation KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Shores KW - Water Quality KW - California KW - San Diego Harbor KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1968, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+DIEGO+HARBOR+CENTRAL+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL+DEEPENING%2C+SAN+DIEGO%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+DIEGO+HARBOR+CENTRAL+NAVIGATION+CHANNEL+DEEPENING%2C+SAN+DIEGO%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: December 18, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT, INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - SOUTH, MARTIN AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36438425; 10536 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Martin and St. Lucie counties, Florida is proposed. The study area includes that portion of the lagoon ecosystem from the St. Lucie-Indian River county line south to the Martin-Palm Beach county line. The Indian River Lagoon and the associated ecosystem encompassing the study area represent an imperiled resource, having been severely impacted by human activities for more than 100 years. The lagoon is nationally significant and unique in North America. The lagoon is included in the Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program and is an Outstanding Florida Water. It has been identified as the most biodiverse estuarine system in all of North America. If restorative actions are not taken in the near future, an irretrievable loss of this extraordinary resource will occur. The proposed plan is related to the Central and Southern Florida Project, a multipurpose project that provides for flood control, water supply, saltwater intrusion prevention, and fish and wildlife habitat protection measures. Both single-purpose and multipurpose alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Principal features of the selected plan would include creation of four new reservoirs covering approximately surface 12,610 acres to provide 130,000 acre-feet of storage, provision of 35,000 acre-feet of storage in stormwater treatment areas created on 8,731 acres of land; restoration of 92,130 acres of natural areas to provide 20,000 acre-feet of effective storage; development of 90 acres of artificial substrate for submerged aquatic vegetation; removal of 5.5 million cubic yards of muck; implementation of measures to reduce phosphorus load by 122 metric tons or 41 percent of the 2050 base load, reduce nitrogen load by 475 metric tons or 26 percent of the 2050 base load; restoration of 53,665 acres of wetlands, a subset of the 92,130 acres to be restored area-wide; creation of 2,650 acres of benthic habitat in the St. Lucie River and Estuary; and restoration of 889 acres of oyster habitat, 922 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, and 3,089 acres of floodplain acquisition. The first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $1.2 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $5.1 million, which includes $1.9 million for project monitoring. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would significantly reduce damaging watershed discharges into receiving waters, provide for water quality treatment, provide for water storage in the natural ecosystem, and increase water supply for agricultural purposes, while maintaining the current water supply needs dictated under the Central and Southern Florida Project. Restoration of the St. Lucie River would be achieved, the significant muck deposits in the estuary would be remediated, and habitat for native flora and fauna, including federally protected species, would be enhanced. Improvement of agricultural production would increase farm income by $6,1 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land acquisition would result in the displacement of the property rights of current landowners. The project would result in large freshwater discharges from the basins draining into the St. Lucie River and the associated estuary, altering the salinity of the receiving waters; require the removal of citrus, pasture, and sugarcane lands from production; increase eutrophication from agricultural and urban areas; require dredging, resulting in disturbance of benthic habitat and release of sediment into the water column; and decrease the distribution and abundance of oysters and juvenile and adult fish. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0090D, Volume 26, Number 1. For the abstracts of the previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 02-0090D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 03-0116F, Volume 27, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030560, 592 pages, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Lagoons KW - Reservoirs KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - St. Lucie River KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438425?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT%2C+INDIAN+RIVER+LAGOON+-+SOUTH%2C+MARTIN+AND+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT%2C+INDIAN+RIVER+LAGOON+-+SOUTH%2C+MARTIN+AND+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36431613; 10534 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway from the intersection of Crow Wing County Road 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road 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 include high crash rages, 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 draft EIS. Alternative 2 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. Depending on the build alternative considered, estimated cost of the project ranges between $65.3 million and $74.2 million, without interchange construction, and between $65.3 million and $93.2 million, with interchange construction. 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 routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 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.) JF - EPA number: 030558, 177 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-D KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments 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/36431613?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-12-11&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. AN - 36429265; 10535 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan in the El Rio Antiguo area of the Rillito River corridor in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The river flows 7.2-miles east to west across the northern boundary of the city of Tuscon from the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash to the Santa Cruz River. The 0.25- to 1.0-mile study corridor, which encompasses 1,066 acres, consists of the portion of the river extending from Crayford Road at the upstream end to Campbell Avenue. Although flood damages have occurred along the study corridor, the primary problem consists of severe degradation and loss of riparian habitat. Wast once flowed perennially, supporting substantial cottonwood and willow stands as well as and mesquite. Increasing appropriate of surface water and groundwater to support the expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the river from a regime characterized by perennial surface and subsurface flows to a dry wash with stabilized banks that flow only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result, stands of native riparian habitat are rare within the study corridor. Invasive plant species have also become a problem. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preliminarily recommended plan would provide for a set of terraces in the area known as the Bend; planting of cottonwood/willow, mesquite, shrub, and grass vegetation in the channel, at tributary mouths, and in water harvesting basins on the tributaries; installation of a culvert and pipeline from upstream to allow water to flow behind the soil cement in two-year and higher flow events to provide water to riparian plant communities along the north bank of the upstream portion of the corridor; creation of a high- and low-flow channel to support a mesquite community and connect the Finger Rock Wash to the Rillito River; provision of water harvesting basins at each upstream tributary mouth; and development of a distribution system for effluent-supporting vegetation. Ancillary recreational features would include decomposed granite multipurpose tails, a pedestrian bridge, parking, and trail links. First cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $60.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The overall benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would restore riparian vegetative communities within the river corridor to a more natural state; increase the acreage of functional seasonal wetland habitat; increase habitat diversity by providing a mix of habitats within the corridor; provide incidental flood control through ecosystem restoration to the extent that it does not impact the restoration objective; and increase recreational and environmental education opportunities within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor short-term impacts would result from removal of existing soil cement banks and grading and construction of project features. LEGAL MANDATES: ]Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 030559, 478 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Rillito River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36429265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&rft.title=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&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: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. AN - 36384678; 10535-030559_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan in the El Rio Antiguo area of the Rillito River corridor in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The river flows 7.2-miles east to west across the northern boundary of the city of Tuscon from the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash to the Santa Cruz River. The 0.25- to 1.0-mile study corridor, which encompasses 1,066 acres, consists of the portion of the river extending from Crayford Road at the upstream end to Campbell Avenue. Although flood damages have occurred along the study corridor, the primary problem consists of severe degradation and loss of riparian habitat. Wast once flowed perennially, supporting substantial cottonwood and willow stands as well as and mesquite. Increasing appropriate of surface water and groundwater to support the expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the river from a regime characterized by perennial surface and subsurface flows to a dry wash with stabilized banks that flow only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result, stands of native riparian habitat are rare within the study corridor. Invasive plant species have also become a problem. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preliminarily recommended plan would provide for a set of terraces in the area known as the Bend; planting of cottonwood/willow, mesquite, shrub, and grass vegetation in the channel, at tributary mouths, and in water harvesting basins on the tributaries; installation of a culvert and pipeline from upstream to allow water to flow behind the soil cement in two-year and higher flow events to provide water to riparian plant communities along the north bank of the upstream portion of the corridor; creation of a high- and low-flow channel to support a mesquite community and connect the Finger Rock Wash to the Rillito River; provision of water harvesting basins at each upstream tributary mouth; and development of a distribution system for effluent-supporting vegetation. Ancillary recreational features would include decomposed granite multipurpose tails, a pedestrian bridge, parking, and trail links. First cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $60.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The overall benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would restore riparian vegetative communities within the river corridor to a more natural state; increase the acreage of functional seasonal wetland habitat; increase habitat diversity by providing a mix of habitats within the corridor; provide incidental flood control through ecosystem restoration to the extent that it does not impact the restoration objective; and increase recreational and environmental education opportunities within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor short-term impacts would result from removal of existing soil cement banks and grading and construction of project features. LEGAL MANDATES: ]Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 030559, 478 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Rillito River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&rft.title=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&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: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. AN - 36383880; 10535-030559_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan in the El Rio Antiguo area of the Rillito River corridor in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The river flows 7.2-miles east to west across the northern boundary of the city of Tuscon from the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash to the Santa Cruz River. The 0.25- to 1.0-mile study corridor, which encompasses 1,066 acres, consists of the portion of the river extending from Crayford Road at the upstream end to Campbell Avenue. Although flood damages have occurred along the study corridor, the primary problem consists of severe degradation and loss of riparian habitat. Wast once flowed perennially, supporting substantial cottonwood and willow stands as well as and mesquite. Increasing appropriate of surface water and groundwater to support the expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the river from a regime characterized by perennial surface and subsurface flows to a dry wash with stabilized banks that flow only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result, stands of native riparian habitat are rare within the study corridor. Invasive plant species have also become a problem. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preliminarily recommended plan would provide for a set of terraces in the area known as the Bend; planting of cottonwood/willow, mesquite, shrub, and grass vegetation in the channel, at tributary mouths, and in water harvesting basins on the tributaries; installation of a culvert and pipeline from upstream to allow water to flow behind the soil cement in two-year and higher flow events to provide water to riparian plant communities along the north bank of the upstream portion of the corridor; creation of a high- and low-flow channel to support a mesquite community and connect the Finger Rock Wash to the Rillito River; provision of water harvesting basins at each upstream tributary mouth; and development of a distribution system for effluent-supporting vegetation. Ancillary recreational features would include decomposed granite multipurpose tails, a pedestrian bridge, parking, and trail links. First cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $60.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The overall benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would restore riparian vegetative communities within the river corridor to a more natural state; increase the acreage of functional seasonal wetland habitat; increase habitat diversity by providing a mix of habitats within the corridor; provide incidental flood control through ecosystem restoration to the extent that it does not impact the restoration objective; and increase recreational and environmental education opportunities within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor short-term impacts would result from removal of existing soil cement banks and grading and construction of project features. LEGAL MANDATES: ]Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 030559, 478 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Rillito River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&rft.title=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&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: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. AN - 36383799; 10535-030559_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan in the El Rio Antiguo area of the Rillito River corridor in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The river flows 7.2-miles east to west across the northern boundary of the city of Tuscon from the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash to the Santa Cruz River. The 0.25- to 1.0-mile study corridor, which encompasses 1,066 acres, consists of the portion of the river extending from Crayford Road at the upstream end to Campbell Avenue. Although flood damages have occurred along the study corridor, the primary problem consists of severe degradation and loss of riparian habitat. Wast once flowed perennially, supporting substantial cottonwood and willow stands as well as and mesquite. Increasing appropriate of surface water and groundwater to support the expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the river from a regime characterized by perennial surface and subsurface flows to a dry wash with stabilized banks that flow only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result, stands of native riparian habitat are rare within the study corridor. Invasive plant species have also become a problem. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preliminarily recommended plan would provide for a set of terraces in the area known as the Bend; planting of cottonwood/willow, mesquite, shrub, and grass vegetation in the channel, at tributary mouths, and in water harvesting basins on the tributaries; installation of a culvert and pipeline from upstream to allow water to flow behind the soil cement in two-year and higher flow events to provide water to riparian plant communities along the north bank of the upstream portion of the corridor; creation of a high- and low-flow channel to support a mesquite community and connect the Finger Rock Wash to the Rillito River; provision of water harvesting basins at each upstream tributary mouth; and development of a distribution system for effluent-supporting vegetation. Ancillary recreational features would include decomposed granite multipurpose tails, a pedestrian bridge, parking, and trail links. First cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $60.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The overall benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would restore riparian vegetative communities within the river corridor to a more natural state; increase the acreage of functional seasonal wetland habitat; increase habitat diversity by providing a mix of habitats within the corridor; provide incidental flood control through ecosystem restoration to the extent that it does not impact the restoration objective; and increase recreational and environmental education opportunities within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor short-term impacts would result from removal of existing soil cement banks and grading and construction of project features. LEGAL MANDATES: ]Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 030559, 478 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Rillito River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&rft.title=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&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: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. AN - 36381904; 10535-030559_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan in the El Rio Antiguo area of the Rillito River corridor in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The river flows 7.2-miles east to west across the northern boundary of the city of Tuscon from the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash to the Santa Cruz River. The 0.25- to 1.0-mile study corridor, which encompasses 1,066 acres, consists of the portion of the river extending from Crayford Road at the upstream end to Campbell Avenue. Although flood damages have occurred along the study corridor, the primary problem consists of severe degradation and loss of riparian habitat. Wast once flowed perennially, supporting substantial cottonwood and willow stands as well as and mesquite. Increasing appropriate of surface water and groundwater to support the expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the river from a regime characterized by perennial surface and subsurface flows to a dry wash with stabilized banks that flow only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result, stands of native riparian habitat are rare within the study corridor. Invasive plant species have also become a problem. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preliminarily recommended plan would provide for a set of terraces in the area known as the Bend; planting of cottonwood/willow, mesquite, shrub, and grass vegetation in the channel, at tributary mouths, and in water harvesting basins on the tributaries; installation of a culvert and pipeline from upstream to allow water to flow behind the soil cement in two-year and higher flow events to provide water to riparian plant communities along the north bank of the upstream portion of the corridor; creation of a high- and low-flow channel to support a mesquite community and connect the Finger Rock Wash to the Rillito River; provision of water harvesting basins at each upstream tributary mouth; and development of a distribution system for effluent-supporting vegetation. Ancillary recreational features would include decomposed granite multipurpose tails, a pedestrian bridge, parking, and trail links. First cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $60.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The overall benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would restore riparian vegetative communities within the river corridor to a more natural state; increase the acreage of functional seasonal wetland habitat; increase habitat diversity by providing a mix of habitats within the corridor; provide incidental flood control through ecosystem restoration to the extent that it does not impact the restoration objective; and increase recreational and environmental education opportunities within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor short-term impacts would result from removal of existing soil cement banks and grading and construction of project features. LEGAL MANDATES: ]Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 030559, 478 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Rillito River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&rft.title=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&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: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. AN - 36381538; 10535-030559_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan in the El Rio Antiguo area of the Rillito River corridor in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The river flows 7.2-miles east to west across the northern boundary of the city of Tuscon from the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash to the Santa Cruz River. The 0.25- to 1.0-mile study corridor, which encompasses 1,066 acres, consists of the portion of the river extending from Crayford Road at the upstream end to Campbell Avenue. Although flood damages have occurred along the study corridor, the primary problem consists of severe degradation and loss of riparian habitat. Wast once flowed perennially, supporting substantial cottonwood and willow stands as well as and mesquite. Increasing appropriate of surface water and groundwater to support the expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the river from a regime characterized by perennial surface and subsurface flows to a dry wash with stabilized banks that flow only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result, stands of native riparian habitat are rare within the study corridor. Invasive plant species have also become a problem. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preliminarily recommended plan would provide for a set of terraces in the area known as the Bend; planting of cottonwood/willow, mesquite, shrub, and grass vegetation in the channel, at tributary mouths, and in water harvesting basins on the tributaries; installation of a culvert and pipeline from upstream to allow water to flow behind the soil cement in two-year and higher flow events to provide water to riparian plant communities along the north bank of the upstream portion of the corridor; creation of a high- and low-flow channel to support a mesquite community and connect the Finger Rock Wash to the Rillito River; provision of water harvesting basins at each upstream tributary mouth; and development of a distribution system for effluent-supporting vegetation. Ancillary recreational features would include decomposed granite multipurpose tails, a pedestrian bridge, parking, and trail links. First cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $60.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The overall benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would restore riparian vegetative communities within the river corridor to a more natural state; increase the acreage of functional seasonal wetland habitat; increase habitat diversity by providing a mix of habitats within the corridor; provide incidental flood control through ecosystem restoration to the extent that it does not impact the restoration objective; and increase recreational and environmental education opportunities within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor short-term impacts would result from removal of existing soil cement banks and grading and construction of project features. LEGAL MANDATES: ]Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 030559, 478 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Rillito River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&rft.title=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&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: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36381536; 10534-030558_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway from the intersection of Crow Wing County Road 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road 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 include high crash rages, 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 draft EIS. Alternative 2 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. Depending on the build alternative considered, estimated cost of the project ranges between $65.3 million and $74.2 million, without interchange construction, and between $65.3 million and $93.2 million, with interchange construction. 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 routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 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.) JF - EPA number: 030558, 177 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-D KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments 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/36381536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT, INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - SOUTH, MARTIN AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT, INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - SOUTH, MARTIN AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36381510; 10536-030560_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Martin and St. Lucie counties, Florida is proposed. The study area includes that portion of the lagoon ecosystem from the St. Lucie-Indian River county line south to the Martin-Palm Beach county line. The Indian River Lagoon and the associated ecosystem encompassing the study area represent an imperiled resource, having been severely impacted by human activities for more than 100 years. The lagoon is nationally significant and unique in North America. The lagoon is included in the Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program and is an Outstanding Florida Water. It has been identified as the most biodiverse estuarine system in all of North America. If restorative actions are not taken in the near future, an irretrievable loss of this extraordinary resource will occur. The proposed plan is related to the Central and Southern Florida Project, a multipurpose project that provides for flood control, water supply, saltwater intrusion prevention, and fish and wildlife habitat protection measures. Both single-purpose and multipurpose alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Principal features of the selected plan would include creation of four new reservoirs covering approximately surface 12,610 acres to provide 130,000 acre-feet of storage, provision of 35,000 acre-feet of storage in stormwater treatment areas created on 8,731 acres of land; restoration of 92,130 acres of natural areas to provide 20,000 acre-feet of effective storage; development of 90 acres of artificial substrate for submerged aquatic vegetation; removal of 5.5 million cubic yards of muck; implementation of measures to reduce phosphorus load by 122 metric tons or 41 percent of the 2050 base load, reduce nitrogen load by 475 metric tons or 26 percent of the 2050 base load; restoration of 53,665 acres of wetlands, a subset of the 92,130 acres to be restored area-wide; creation of 2,650 acres of benthic habitat in the St. Lucie River and Estuary; and restoration of 889 acres of oyster habitat, 922 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, and 3,089 acres of floodplain acquisition. The first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $1.2 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $5.1 million, which includes $1.9 million for project monitoring. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would significantly reduce damaging watershed discharges into receiving waters, provide for water quality treatment, provide for water storage in the natural ecosystem, and increase water supply for agricultural purposes, while maintaining the current water supply needs dictated under the Central and Southern Florida Project. Restoration of the St. Lucie River would be achieved, the significant muck deposits in the estuary would be remediated, and habitat for native flora and fauna, including federally protected species, would be enhanced. Improvement of agricultural production would increase farm income by $6,1 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land acquisition would result in the displacement of the property rights of current landowners. The project would result in large freshwater discharges from the basins draining into the St. Lucie River and the associated estuary, altering the salinity of the receiving waters; require the removal of citrus, pasture, and sugarcane lands from production; increase eutrophication from agricultural and urban areas; require dredging, resulting in disturbance of benthic habitat and release of sediment into the water column; and decrease the distribution and abundance of oysters and juvenile and adult fish. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0090D, Volume 26, Number 1. For the abstracts of the previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 02-0090D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 03-0116F, Volume 27, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030560, 592 pages, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Lagoons KW - Reservoirs KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - St. Lucie River KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT%2C+INDIAN+RIVER+LAGOON+-+SOUTH%2C+MARTIN+AND+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT%2C+INDIAN+RIVER+LAGOON+-+SOUTH%2C+MARTIN+AND+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - RILLITO RIVER, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: EL RIO ANTIGUO FEASIBILITY STUDY. AN - 36381453; 10535-030559_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an ecological restoration plan in the El Rio Antiguo area of the Rillito River corridor in Pima County, Arizona is proposed. The river flows 7.2-miles east to west across the northern boundary of the city of Tuscon from the confluence of the Tanque Verde Creek and Pantano Wash to the Santa Cruz River. The 0.25- to 1.0-mile study corridor, which encompasses 1,066 acres, consists of the portion of the river extending from Crayford Road at the upstream end to Campbell Avenue. Although flood damages have occurred along the study corridor, the primary problem consists of severe degradation and loss of riparian habitat. Wast once flowed perennially, supporting substantial cottonwood and willow stands as well as and mesquite. Increasing appropriate of surface water and groundwater to support the expansion of agriculture and growing urban populations resulted in the transformation of the river from a regime characterized by perennial surface and subsurface flows to a dry wash with stabilized banks that flow only ephemerally in response to storm runoff. As a result, stands of native riparian habitat are rare within the study corridor. Invasive plant species have also become a problem. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preliminarily recommended plan would provide for a set of terraces in the area known as the Bend; planting of cottonwood/willow, mesquite, shrub, and grass vegetation in the channel, at tributary mouths, and in water harvesting basins on the tributaries; installation of a culvert and pipeline from upstream to allow water to flow behind the soil cement in two-year and higher flow events to provide water to riparian plant communities along the north bank of the upstream portion of the corridor; creation of a high- and low-flow channel to support a mesquite community and connect the Finger Rock Wash to the Rillito River; provision of water harvesting basins at each upstream tributary mouth; and development of a distribution system for effluent-supporting vegetation. Ancillary recreational features would include decomposed granite multipurpose tails, a pedestrian bridge, parking, and trail links. First cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $60.2 million. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $1.2 million. The overall benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 1.46. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would restore riparian vegetative communities within the river corridor to a more natural state; increase the acreage of functional seasonal wetland habitat; increase habitat diversity by providing a mix of habitats within the corridor; provide incidental flood control through ecosystem restoration to the extent that it does not impact the restoration objective; and increase recreational and environmental education opportunities within the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor short-term impacts would result from removal of existing soil cement banks and grading and construction of project features. LEGAL MANDATES: ]Flood Control Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-761), Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-303). JF - EPA number: 030559, 478 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Arizona KW - Rillito River KW - Flood Control Act of 1938, Project Authorization KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&rft.title=RILLITO+RIVER%2C+PIMA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA%3A+EL+RIO+ANTIGUO+FEASIBILITY+STUDY.&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: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36381408; 10534-030558_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway from the intersection of Crow Wing County Road 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road 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 include high crash rages, 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 draft EIS. Alternative 2 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. Depending on the build alternative considered, estimated cost of the project ranges between $65.3 million and $74.2 million, without interchange construction, and between $65.3 million and $93.2 million, with interchange construction. 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 routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 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.) JF - EPA number: 030558, 177 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-D KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments 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/36381408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT, INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - SOUTH, MARTIN AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT, INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - SOUTH, MARTIN AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36381311; 10536-030560_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Martin and St. Lucie counties, Florida is proposed. The study area includes that portion of the lagoon ecosystem from the St. Lucie-Indian River county line south to the Martin-Palm Beach county line. The Indian River Lagoon and the associated ecosystem encompassing the study area represent an imperiled resource, having been severely impacted by human activities for more than 100 years. The lagoon is nationally significant and unique in North America. The lagoon is included in the Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program and is an Outstanding Florida Water. It has been identified as the most biodiverse estuarine system in all of North America. If restorative actions are not taken in the near future, an irretrievable loss of this extraordinary resource will occur. The proposed plan is related to the Central and Southern Florida Project, a multipurpose project that provides for flood control, water supply, saltwater intrusion prevention, and fish and wildlife habitat protection measures. Both single-purpose and multipurpose alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Principal features of the selected plan would include creation of four new reservoirs covering approximately surface 12,610 acres to provide 130,000 acre-feet of storage, provision of 35,000 acre-feet of storage in stormwater treatment areas created on 8,731 acres of land; restoration of 92,130 acres of natural areas to provide 20,000 acre-feet of effective storage; development of 90 acres of artificial substrate for submerged aquatic vegetation; removal of 5.5 million cubic yards of muck; implementation of measures to reduce phosphorus load by 122 metric tons or 41 percent of the 2050 base load, reduce nitrogen load by 475 metric tons or 26 percent of the 2050 base load; restoration of 53,665 acres of wetlands, a subset of the 92,130 acres to be restored area-wide; creation of 2,650 acres of benthic habitat in the St. Lucie River and Estuary; and restoration of 889 acres of oyster habitat, 922 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation, and 3,089 acres of floodplain acquisition. The first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $1.2 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $5.1 million, which includes $1.9 million for project monitoring. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would significantly reduce damaging watershed discharges into receiving waters, provide for water quality treatment, provide for water storage in the natural ecosystem, and increase water supply for agricultural purposes, while maintaining the current water supply needs dictated under the Central and Southern Florida Project. Restoration of the St. Lucie River would be achieved, the significant muck deposits in the estuary would be remediated, and habitat for native flora and fauna, including federally protected species, would be enhanced. Improvement of agricultural production would increase farm income by $6,1 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Land acquisition would result in the displacement of the property rights of current landowners. The project would result in large freshwater discharges from the basins draining into the St. Lucie River and the associated estuary, altering the salinity of the receiving waters; require the removal of citrus, pasture, and sugarcane lands from production; increase eutrophication from agricultural and urban areas; require dredging, resulting in disturbance of benthic habitat and release of sediment into the water column; and decrease the distribution and abundance of oysters and juvenile and adult fish. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-580), and Water Resources Development Act of 2000. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0090D, Volume 26, Number 1. For the abstracts of the previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 02-0090D, Volume 26, Number 1 and 03-0116F, Volume 27, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030560, 592 pages, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Cost Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Lagoons KW - Reservoirs KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Florida KW - Lake Okeechobee KW - St. Lucie River KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1992, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT%2C+INDIAN+RIVER+LAGOON+-+SOUTH%2C+MARTIN+AND+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT%2C+INDIAN+RIVER+LAGOON+-+SOUTH%2C+MARTIN+AND+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - TRUNK HIGHWAY 371 IN CASS AND CROW WING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 36367823; 10534-030558_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a four-lane limited access highway from the intersection of Crow Wing County Road 18 in Nisswa to the intersection of Cass County Road 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 include high crash rages, 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 draft EIS. Alternative 2 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. Depending on the build alternative considered, estimated cost of the project ranges between $65.3 million and $74.2 million, without interchange construction, and between $65.3 million and $93.2 million, with interchange construction. 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 routes that use roadways within the project corridor area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the alternative selected, 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.) JF - EPA number: 030558, 177 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MN-EIS-03-01-D KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources Assessments 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/36367823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT (TAMAIMI TRAIL): MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT (TAMAIMI TRAIL): MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 36352647; 10622-040068_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvements of culverts under the Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41) through the Everglades National Park (ENP) in southern Florida is proposed. Improvements in the delivery of water from Water Conservation Area 3B of the ENP expansion area in Northeast Shark River Slough immediately south of Tamiami Trail. These improvements were documented in a final EIS issued in 1992. At that time, it was believed that the existing 19 sets of individual culverts under the trail were sufficient to pass the required volume of water from the adjoining Tamiami Canal on the north into the ENP to the south without collateral effects. Since that time, it has been determined that, under some high flow conditions, the required elevation of water in the canal would raise groundwater levels under the highway to the point that damage could result to the highway subgrade. Under extreme conditions, low spots along the highway could be overtopped. This final supplement to the 1992 EIS addresses this problem and analyses eight alternative plans to protect the highway. Each alternative would involve increasing the cross-section of openings under the highway in order to minimize the rise in water level in the canal necessary to pass the required volume of water and to spread the water flow to the south as evenly as practicable. The alternatives include additional culverts under the highway, construction of one or more bridges within or outside the existing highway rights-of-way, or elevating the highway for the full 10.7-mile section within the project area. Where appropriate, an option was included for raising the highway profile on either side of the bridges or culverts to prevent subgrade damage during the rare event when full design flow would occur. In addition, each alternative would include an option to provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff from the reconstructed portions of the highway. The preliminarily recommended alternative would provide for a 3,000-foot bridge, without a water quality treatment component, and acquisition of associated real estate interests to provide for conveyance facilities to be constructed between the Blue Shanty Canal and Coopertown. Estimated construction costs for the recommended plan amount to $23.0 million. Total life cycle costs are estimated at $31.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to precluding flooding of the highway during extreme storm events, the plan would provide additional ecological connectivity between ENP and the L-29 Canal, enhancing biological communities south of the existing Tamiami Trail. The aesthetics of the trail would be enhanced by the removal of exotic vegetation on the southern side of the highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the loss of 3.42 functional wetland units. Approximately 2,295 linear feet of the highway are located in a primary habitat zone and an additional 2,122 linear feet are located in a secondary zone of the Tamiami West Wood Stock colony, a federally protected species; nevertheless, construction restrictions would prevent significant impacts to habitat in these areas. Modification of the Tamiami Trail would result in the alteration of an historic resource. The project would result in relatively minor impacts to the Osceola Camp, the Airboat Association of Florida, and three airboat tour businesses. Though noise levels in the vicinity of some sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards, this would occur regardless whether the project was implemented. LEGAL MANDATES: Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (P.L. 103-219) and 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 02-0100D, Volume 26, Number 1. For the abstract of related EISs, see 00-0251D, Volume 24, Number 2, JF - EPA number: 040068, 982 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Plant Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352647?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+%28TAMAIMI+TRAIL%29%3A+MODIFIED+WATER+DELIVERIES+TO+EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+%28TAMAIMI+TRAIL%29%3A+MODIFIED+WATER+DELIVERIES+TO+EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT (TAMAIMI TRAIL): MODIFIED WATER DELIVERIES TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 16354579; 10622 AB - PURPOSE: The improvements of culverts under the Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41) through the Everglades National Park (ENP) in southern Florida is proposed. Improvements in the delivery of water from Water Conservation Area 3B of the ENP expansion area in Northeast Shark River Slough immediately south of Tamiami Trail. These improvements were documented in a final EIS issued in 1992. At that time, it was believed that the existing 19 sets of individual culverts under the trail were sufficient to pass the required volume of water from the adjoining Tamiami Canal on the north into the ENP to the south without collateral effects. Since that time, it has been determined that, under some high flow conditions, the required elevation of water in the canal would raise groundwater levels under the highway to the point that damage could result to the highway subgrade. Under extreme conditions, low spots along the highway could be overtopped. This final supplement to the 1992 EIS addresses this problem and analyses eight alternative plans to protect the highway. Each alternative would involve increasing the cross-section of openings under the highway in order to minimize the rise in water level in the canal necessary to pass the required volume of water and to spread the water flow to the south as evenly as practicable. The alternatives include additional culverts under the highway, construction of one or more bridges within or outside the existing highway rights-of-way, or elevating the highway for the full 10.7-mile section within the project area. Where appropriate, an option was included for raising the highway profile on either side of the bridges or culverts to prevent subgrade damage during the rare event when full design flow would occur. In addition, each alternative would include an option to provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff from the reconstructed portions of the highway. The preliminarily recommended alternative would provide for a 3,000-foot bridge, without a water quality treatment component, and acquisition of associated real estate interests to provide for conveyance facilities to be constructed between the Blue Shanty Canal and Coopertown. Estimated construction costs for the recommended plan amount to $23.0 million. Total life cycle costs are estimated at $31.0 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to precluding flooding of the highway during extreme storm events, the plan would provide additional ecological connectivity between ENP and the L-29 Canal, enhancing biological communities south of the existing Tamiami Trail. The aesthetics of the trail would be enhanced by the removal of exotic vegetation on the southern side of the highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in the loss of 3.42 functional wetland units. Approximately 2,295 linear feet of the highway are located in a primary habitat zone and an additional 2,122 linear feet are located in a secondary zone of the Tamiami West Wood Stock colony, a federally protected species; nevertheless, construction restrictions would prevent significant impacts to habitat in these areas. Modification of the Tamiami Trail would result in the alteration of an historic resource. The project would result in relatively minor impacts to the Osceola Camp, the Airboat Association of Florida, and three airboat tour businesses. Though noise levels in the vicinity of some sensitive receptors would exceed federal standards, this would occur regardless whether the project was implemented. LEGAL MANDATES: Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 (P.L. 103-219) and 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 02-0100D, Volume 26, Number 1. For the abstract of related EISs, see 00-0251D, Volume 24, Number 2, JF - EPA number: 040068, 982 pages and maps, December 11, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Flood Control KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Plant Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-12-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+%28TAMAIMI+TRAIL%29%3A+MODIFIED+WATER+DELIVERIES+TO+EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+%28TAMAIMI+TRAIL%29%3A+MODIFIED+WATER+DELIVERIES+TO+EVERGLADES+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENHANCED EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING ACTIVITY FOR LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ENHANCED EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING ACTIVITY FOR LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL MISSISSIPPI. AN - 36346564; 10526-030550_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a plan for enhanced evaluation of cumulative effects associated with US Army Corps of Engineers permitting activity for large-scale development in coastal areas in Mississippi is proposed. The areas affected include those along the Gulf Coast of Harrison, Hancock, and western Jackson counties. This EIS is a hybrid document with a cope that departs in several notable ways from a traditional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. The scope is two-fold: 1) to produce a comprehensive analysis of recent and reasonably foreseeable development trends and associated environmental conditions and 2) to consider effects of putting into place a tailored method for evaluating and mitigating regional cumulative effects in environmental impact evaluations associated with future permit applications for large-scale development projects in coastal Mississippi. The trends analysis associated with this EIS evaluates relevant planning documents and projects in coastal Mississippi development trends and their cumulative effects spanning the period extending from 1992 to 2020, using geographic information systems and econometric forecasting models. The EIS evaluates long-term (20-year) regional cumulative effects of Corps permitting actions in the coastal Mississippi area under various development scenarios and regulatory frameworks. For the proposed action, the EIS assesses the environmental and socioeconomic effects of developing and implementing a consistent methodology for conducting cumulative effects analyses that would rely on the results of the trends analysis in future Corps permit decisions regarding applications for large-scale development projects in coastal Mississippi that require individual Corps permits. Four growth scenarios were evaluated to assess the future environmental and socioeconomic conditions of the coastal Mississippi area. Under the No Action Alternative, the Corps would continue to perform cumulative effects analyses for permits on an ad hoc basis, and regional growth would continue to be managed as in the past. Under the proposed action, mitigation strategies (termed Regional Conservation Practices (RCPs) in the EIS) would be considered during permitting and implementation of large-scale developments. These RCPs would encompass cumulative effects identified through trend analyses including enhanced stormwater control measures, enhanced management strategies and net technology for reducing septic tank failures, enhanced wetland creation and mitigation tracking, and increased intervention for the protection of federally protected species. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, enhanced consideration of regional cumulative effects during permitting and implementation of RCPs to reduce these effects would result in minor to significant beneficial effects relative to the No Action Alternative. It would be noted that most of these RCPs are beyond the regulatory authority of the Corps; hence, many RCPs would need to be adopted voluntarily by state, local, and/or private developers, others might be included as special permit conditions by the Corps for large-scale development projects, on a case-by-case basis. Relative to current conditions, implementation of the proposed action might mitigate significant adverse effects on most resources, even under high-growth scenario conditions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the permitting regime established, large-scale developments would result in the loss of valuable coastal wetlands and associated wildlife habitat and other ecosystem values. Such impacts would reduce the economic viabilities of commercial sectors dependent on wetland values. Due to the demographics of coastal areas, large-scale projects could disproportionately impact low-income, elderly, and ethnic minority groups. Developments in areas prone to hurricanes and other storm-related flooding would also affect the level of public safety. Cultural and visual resources would also be degraded by virtually any extensive development. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030550, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--441 pages, CD-ROM, December 4, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Harbors KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi 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/36346564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENHANCED+EVALUATION+OF+CUMULATIVE+EFFECTS+ASSOCIATED+WITH+US+ARMY+CORPS+OF+ENGINEERS+PERMITTING+ACTIVITY+FOR+LARGE-SCALE+DEVELOPMENT+IN+COASTAL+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=ENHANCED+EVALUATION+OF+CUMULATIVE+EFFECTS+ASSOCIATED+WITH+US+ARMY+CORPS+OF+ENGINEERS+PERMITTING+ACTIVITY+FOR+LARGE-SCALE+DEVELOPMENT+IN+COASTAL+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ENHANCED EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING ACTIVITY FOR LARGE-SCALE DEVELOPMENT IN COASTAL MISSISSIPPI. AN - 16365830; 10526 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a plan for enhanced evaluation of cumulative effects associated with US Army Corps of Engineers permitting activity for large-scale development in coastal areas in Mississippi is proposed. The areas affected include those along the Gulf Coast of Harrison, Hancock, and western Jackson counties. This EIS is a hybrid document with a cope that departs in several notable ways from a traditional analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. The scope is two-fold: 1) to produce a comprehensive analysis of recent and reasonably foreseeable development trends and associated environmental conditions and 2) to consider effects of putting into place a tailored method for evaluating and mitigating regional cumulative effects in environmental impact evaluations associated with future permit applications for large-scale development projects in coastal Mississippi. The trends analysis associated with this EIS evaluates relevant planning documents and projects in coastal Mississippi development trends and their cumulative effects spanning the period extending from 1992 to 2020, using geographic information systems and econometric forecasting models. The EIS evaluates long-term (20-year) regional cumulative effects of Corps permitting actions in the coastal Mississippi area under various development scenarios and regulatory frameworks. For the proposed action, the EIS assesses the environmental and socioeconomic effects of developing and implementing a consistent methodology for conducting cumulative effects analyses that would rely on the results of the trends analysis in future Corps permit decisions regarding applications for large-scale development projects in coastal Mississippi that require individual Corps permits. Four growth scenarios were evaluated to assess the future environmental and socioeconomic conditions of the coastal Mississippi area. Under the No Action Alternative, the Corps would continue to perform cumulative effects analyses for permits on an ad hoc basis, and regional growth would continue to be managed as in the past. Under the proposed action, mitigation strategies (termed Regional Conservation Practices (RCPs) in the EIS) would be considered during permitting and implementation of large-scale developments. These RCPs would encompass cumulative effects identified through trend analyses including enhanced stormwater control measures, enhanced management strategies and net technology for reducing septic tank failures, enhanced wetland creation and mitigation tracking, and increased intervention for the protection of federally protected species. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action, enhanced consideration of regional cumulative effects during permitting and implementation of RCPs to reduce these effects would result in minor to significant beneficial effects relative to the No Action Alternative. It would be noted that most of these RCPs are beyond the regulatory authority of the Corps; hence, many RCPs would need to be adopted voluntarily by state, local, and/or private developers, others might be included as special permit conditions by the Corps for large-scale development projects, on a case-by-case basis. Relative to current conditions, implementation of the proposed action might mitigate significant adverse effects on most resources, even under high-growth scenario conditions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Regardless of the permitting regime established, large-scale developments would result in the loss of valuable coastal wetlands and associated wildlife habitat and other ecosystem values. Such impacts would reduce the economic viabilities of commercial sectors dependent on wetland values. Due to the demographics of coastal areas, large-scale projects could disproportionately impact low-income, elderly, and ethnic minority groups. Developments in areas prone to hurricanes and other storm-related flooding would also affect the level of public safety. Cultural and visual resources would also be degraded by virtually any extensive development. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030550, Final EIS--301 pages and maps, Appendices--441 pages, CD-ROM, December 4, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Harbors KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Minorities KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi 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/16365830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-12-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ENHANCED+EVALUATION+OF+CUMULATIVE+EFFECTS+ASSOCIATED+WITH+US+ARMY+CORPS+OF+ENGINEERS+PERMITTING+ACTIVITY+FOR+LARGE-SCALE+DEVELOPMENT+IN+COASTAL+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=ENHANCED+EVALUATION+OF+CUMULATIVE+EFFECTS+ASSOCIATED+WITH+US+ARMY+CORPS+OF+ENGINEERS+PERMITTING+ACTIVITY+FOR+LARGE-SCALE+DEVELOPMENT+IN+COASTAL+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 4, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOS POBRES/SAN JUAN PROJECT, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - DOS POBRES/SAN JUAN PROJECT, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36356448; 10525-030548_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of a mining plan of operations (MPO) development of mineral resources associated with the Dos Pobres and San Juan leachable copper ore deposits in Graham County, Arizona is proposed. The proposed Dos Pobres/San Juan Project, submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by Phelps Dodge Safford, Inc. (Phelps Dodge), would involve implementation an integrated mine plan employing conventional open-pit mining techniques with solution extraction/electrowinning technologies (SX/EW). As proposed, the project, located near Safford, would consist of two open-pit mines with one leach pad, a crushing and material-handling system, one shared SX/EW processing facility, and shared infrastructure and support facilities. The project would produce approximately 2.9 billion pounds of salable copper over it's 16-year production life. Project production would include the mining of 626 million tons of oxide and sulfide leach ore and 385 million tons of lower-grade and unmineralized material (development rock). Total mineable mineral amounts to 1.01 billion tons resulting in a 0.6:1 non-ore-to-ore ratio. Construction of the SX /EW facility would require 15 months to complete. Construction of the crushing and material handling system would begin approximately two years after construction of the SX/EW plant. A reclamation plan would be included in the project. Project activities would encompass 1,429 acres of private lands held by Phelps Dodge and 1,931 acres of BLM lands. In addition to the MPO, the BLM has approved a land exchange with Phelps Dodge that would enable the Dos Pobres/San Juan Project to proceed without BLM oversight, assuming that the Phelps Dodge was able to obtain all necessary environmental permits. Authorizing the MPO and approving the land exchange constitute two separate, but related, federal actions, both of which are addressed in this final EIS. Alternatives include three mine plan and two land exchange alternatives, each category including one No Action Alternative. The mining proposal by Phelps Dodge, with some potential changes, constitutes the action mining alternative. The action land exchange alternative would involve exchange of 16,297 acres of public land desired by Phelps Dodge for approximately 3,867 acres held by Phelps Dodge in five counties in Arizona. The BLM, which constitutes the primary decision-making agency, has selected as its preferred alternative the action land exchange alternative under which Phelps Dodge would acquire title to the selected lands. The Army Corps of Engineer's preferred alternative is the least environmentally damaging, practicable mine plan alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Extraction of the copper ore would help meet the nation's need for this metal and provide substantial employment locally for the entire life of the project. Approximately 250 full-time workers would during the operational phase of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would result in temporary and permanent loss of grazing access on extensive areas of public land. Major modifications to the landscape would have visual impacts, though these could be reduced to some degree. Mine blasting would increase noise and cause vibration for the life of the project. Long-term of groundwater levels and changes in groundwater gradients would occur within the project area, and a Dodge Phelps seep would be permanently lost. Numerous archaeological sites, including sites considered to be significant to local Indian tribes, would be destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0325D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030548, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--2429 pages and maps, December 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Reclamation Mining KW - Section 404 (b) Statements KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Arizona KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOS+POBRES%2FSAN+JUAN+PROJECT%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DOS+POBRES%2FSAN+JUAN+PROJECT%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOS POBRES/SAN JUAN PROJECT, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - DOS POBRES/SAN JUAN PROJECT, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 36346505; 10525-030548_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of a mining plan of operations (MPO) development of mineral resources associated with the Dos Pobres and San Juan leachable copper ore deposits in Graham County, Arizona is proposed. The proposed Dos Pobres/San Juan Project, submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by Phelps Dodge Safford, Inc. (Phelps Dodge), would involve implementation an integrated mine plan employing conventional open-pit mining techniques with solution extraction/electrowinning technologies (SX/EW). As proposed, the project, located near Safford, would consist of two open-pit mines with one leach pad, a crushing and material-handling system, one shared SX/EW processing facility, and shared infrastructure and support facilities. The project would produce approximately 2.9 billion pounds of salable copper over it's 16-year production life. Project production would include the mining of 626 million tons of oxide and sulfide leach ore and 385 million tons of lower-grade and unmineralized material (development rock). Total mineable mineral amounts to 1.01 billion tons resulting in a 0.6:1 non-ore-to-ore ratio. Construction of the SX /EW facility would require 15 months to complete. Construction of the crushing and material handling system would begin approximately two years after construction of the SX/EW plant. A reclamation plan would be included in the project. Project activities would encompass 1,429 acres of private lands held by Phelps Dodge and 1,931 acres of BLM lands. In addition to the MPO, the BLM has approved a land exchange with Phelps Dodge that would enable the Dos Pobres/San Juan Project to proceed without BLM oversight, assuming that the Phelps Dodge was able to obtain all necessary environmental permits. Authorizing the MPO and approving the land exchange constitute two separate, but related, federal actions, both of which are addressed in this final EIS. Alternatives include three mine plan and two land exchange alternatives, each category including one No Action Alternative. The mining proposal by Phelps Dodge, with some potential changes, constitutes the action mining alternative. The action land exchange alternative would involve exchange of 16,297 acres of public land desired by Phelps Dodge for approximately 3,867 acres held by Phelps Dodge in five counties in Arizona. The BLM, which constitutes the primary decision-making agency, has selected as its preferred alternative the action land exchange alternative under which Phelps Dodge would acquire title to the selected lands. The Army Corps of Engineer's preferred alternative is the least environmentally damaging, practicable mine plan alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Extraction of the copper ore would help meet the nation's need for this metal and provide substantial employment locally for the entire life of the project. Approximately 250 full-time workers would during the operational phase of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would result in temporary and permanent loss of grazing access on extensive areas of public land. Major modifications to the landscape would have visual impacts, though these could be reduced to some degree. Mine blasting would increase noise and cause vibration for the life of the project. Long-term of groundwater levels and changes in groundwater gradients would occur within the project area, and a Dodge Phelps seep would be permanently lost. Numerous archaeological sites, including sites considered to be significant to local Indian tribes, would be destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0325D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030548, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--2429 pages and maps, December 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Reclamation Mining KW - Section 404 (b) Statements KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Arizona KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOS+POBRES%2FSAN+JUAN+PROJECT%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DOS+POBRES%2FSAN+JUAN+PROJECT%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOS POBRES/SAN JUAN PROJECT, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 15226591; 10525 AB - PURPOSE: The authorization of a mining plan of operations (MPO) development of mineral resources associated with the Dos Pobres and San Juan leachable copper ore deposits in Graham County, Arizona is proposed. The proposed Dos Pobres/San Juan Project, submitted to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by Phelps Dodge Safford, Inc. (Phelps Dodge), would involve implementation an integrated mine plan employing conventional open-pit mining techniques with solution extraction/electrowinning technologies (SX/EW). As proposed, the project, located near Safford, would consist of two open-pit mines with one leach pad, a crushing and material-handling system, one shared SX/EW processing facility, and shared infrastructure and support facilities. The project would produce approximately 2.9 billion pounds of salable copper over it's 16-year production life. Project production would include the mining of 626 million tons of oxide and sulfide leach ore and 385 million tons of lower-grade and unmineralized material (development rock). Total mineable mineral amounts to 1.01 billion tons resulting in a 0.6:1 non-ore-to-ore ratio. Construction of the SX /EW facility would require 15 months to complete. Construction of the crushing and material handling system would begin approximately two years after construction of the SX/EW plant. A reclamation plan would be included in the project. Project activities would encompass 1,429 acres of private lands held by Phelps Dodge and 1,931 acres of BLM lands. In addition to the MPO, the BLM has approved a land exchange with Phelps Dodge that would enable the Dos Pobres/San Juan Project to proceed without BLM oversight, assuming that the Phelps Dodge was able to obtain all necessary environmental permits. Authorizing the MPO and approving the land exchange constitute two separate, but related, federal actions, both of which are addressed in this final EIS. Alternatives include three mine plan and two land exchange alternatives, each category including one No Action Alternative. The mining proposal by Phelps Dodge, with some potential changes, constitutes the action mining alternative. The action land exchange alternative would involve exchange of 16,297 acres of public land desired by Phelps Dodge for approximately 3,867 acres held by Phelps Dodge in five counties in Arizona. The BLM, which constitutes the primary decision-making agency, has selected as its preferred alternative the action land exchange alternative under which Phelps Dodge would acquire title to the selected lands. The Army Corps of Engineer's preferred alternative is the least environmentally damaging, practicable mine plan alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Extraction of the copper ore would help meet the nation's need for this metal and provide substantial employment locally for the entire life of the project. Approximately 250 full-time workers would during the operational phase of the project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would result in temporary and permanent loss of grazing access on extensive areas of public land. Major modifications to the landscape would have visual impacts, though these could be reduced to some degree. Mine blasting would increase noise and cause vibration for the life of the project. Long-term of groundwater levels and changes in groundwater gradients would occur within the project area, and a Dodge Phelps seep would be permanently lost. Numerous archaeological sites, including sites considered to be significant to local Indian tribes, would be destroyed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 98-0325D, Volume 22, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030548, Volume 1--478 pages and maps, Volume 2--2429 pages and maps, December 3, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Land Use KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Grazing KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Reclamation Mining KW - Section 404 (b) Statements KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Arizona KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15226591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-12-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOS+POBRES%2FSAN+JUAN+PROJECT%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=DOS+POBRES%2FSAN+JUAN+PROJECT%2C+GRAHAM+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Safford, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36349102; 10524-030547_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this final EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (Alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19.05 million to $23.41 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 04-0097D, Volume 28, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030547, Executive Summary--29 pages, Final EIS--442 pages and maps, Final EIS Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--21 pages, Final EIS CD-ROM. Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, December 2, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Playing in the mud-using gene expression to assess contaminant effects on sediment dwelling invertebrates. AN - 71466045; 14680323 AB - Bioaccumulation and toxicity tests using benthic invertebrates such as the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus are typically used to assess the ecological risk associated with contaminated sediments. Despite their ecological and regulatory importance, little is known about such species at the genetic level. To begin understanding cellular and genetic responses of L. plumulosus to contaminants, we isolated several of their genes and developed quantitative assays to measure the effects of water exposures to 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene and phenanthrene on gene expression. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays demonstrated that the expression of the genes for actin and a retrotransposon, hopper, was dependent on the exposure and tissue concentrations of those chemicals. Our data suggests that exposure to the explosive 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene and phenanthrene may induce movement of hopper resulting in unexpected genotoxic results. JF - Ecotoxicology (London, England) AU - Perkins, Edward J AU - Lotufo, Guilherme R AD - Environmental Laboratory, Engineer Research and Development Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. Edward.J.Perkins@us.army.mil Y1 - 2003/12// PY - 2003 DA - December 2003 SP - 453 EP - 456 VL - 12 IS - 6 SN - 0963-9292, 0963-9292 KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - 0 KW - Index Medicus KW - Polymerase Chain Reaction KW - Animals KW - Mutagenicity Tests KW - Geologic Sediments KW - Environmental Monitoring -- methods KW - Risk Assessment KW - Gene Expression Profiling KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- toxicity KW - Amphipoda -- physiology KW - Amphipoda -- genetics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/71466045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Ecotoxicology+%28London%2C+England%29&rft.atitle=Playing+in+the+mud-using+gene+expression+to+assess+contaminant+effects+on+sediment+dwelling+invertebrates.&rft.au=Perkins%2C+Edward+J%3BLotufo%2C+Guilherme+R&rft.aulast=Perkins&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2003-12-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=453&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecotoxicology+%28London%2C+England%29&rft.issn=09639292&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2004-03-16 N1 - Date created - 2003-12-18 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Liquefaction centrifuge modeling of sands of different permeability AN - 51800321; 2004-071748 AB - This paper presents the results of six centrifuge model tests of liquefaction and earthquake-induced lateral spreading of fine Nevada sand using an inclined laminar box. The centrifuge experiments simulate a gently sloping, 10 m thick stratum of saturated homogeneous sand of infinite lateral extent and relative densities ranging from 45 to 75%. Such idealized models approach some field situations and they provide significant general insight into the basic mechanisms and parameters influencing the lateral spreading phenomenon. The layer was subjected to lateral base shaking with prototype peak acceleration ranging from 0.20 to 0.41 g, a frequency of 2 Hz, and duration of approximately 22 cycles. The simulated field slope angle was 5 degrees . The model deposits were all saturated with a viscous fluid 50 times more viscous than water, so that testing under the increased gravitational field (50 g) produced a deposit with the prototype permeability of the same fine-grained sand saturated with water in the field. Detailed discussions and comparisons of the six centrifuge tests are included. The observed effects of relative density D (sub r) and input peak acceleration alpha (sub max) on the following measured parameters are summarized: thickness of liquefied soil H (sub 1) , permanent lateral displacement D (sub H) , and ground surface settlement S. Comparisons and discussions are also presented on the effect of permeability for a D (sub r) = 45% deposit. This is done by comparing the results reported herein using a viscous pore fluid, with other published centrifuge tests where a similar deposit using the same model soil, also tested at 50 g and shaken with the same input motion, was saturated with water, thus simulating a prototype sand having 50 times the permeability of the fine sand reported in this paper. JF - Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering AU - Sharp, Michael K AU - Dobry, Ricardo AU - Abdoun, Tarek Y1 - 2003/12// PY - 2003 DA - December 2003 SP - 1083 EP - 1091 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY VL - 129 IS - 12 SN - 1090-0241, 1090-0241 KW - soil mechanics KW - sand KW - experimental studies KW - density KW - clastic sediments KW - shaking tables KW - saturated materials KW - acceleration KW - settlement KW - effects KW - liquefaction potential KW - simulation KW - liquefaction KW - physical models KW - laboratory studies KW - factors KW - centrifuge methods KW - pore pressure KW - sediments KW - thickness KW - earthquakes KW - permeability KW - sandbox models KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51800321?accountid=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=Liquefaction+centrifuge+modeling+of+sands+of+different+permeability&rft.au=Sharp%2C+Michael+K%3BDobry%2C+Ricardo%3BAbdoun%2C+Tarek&rft.aulast=Sharp&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2003-12-01&rft.volume=129&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1083&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%282003%29129%3A12%281083%29 L2 - http://scitation.aip.org/gto LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 12 N1 - PubXState - NY N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acceleration; centrifuge methods; clastic sediments; density; earthquakes; effects; experimental studies; factors; laboratory studies; liquefaction; liquefaction potential; permeability; physical models; pore pressure; sand; sandbox models; saturated materials; sediments; settlement; shaking tables; simulation; soil mechanics; thickness DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:12(1083) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Seismic FDTD modeling of surface waves over grid-transformed and stair-stepped topographies AN - 51463643; 2007-038248 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Ketcham, Stephen A AU - Moran, Mark L AU - Anderson, Thomas S AU - Greenfield, Roy AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2003/12// PY - 2003 DA - December 2003 SP - Abstract S42J EP - 04 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 84 IS - 46, Suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - body waves KW - numerical models KW - three-dimensional models KW - guided waves KW - finite difference analysis KW - elastic waves KW - Rayleigh waves KW - wavelength KW - topography KW - surface waves KW - velocity KW - time domain analysis KW - propagation KW - seismic waves KW - transformations KW - arrival time KW - earthquakes KW - S-waves KW - point sources KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51463643?accountid=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=Seismic+FDTD+modeling+of+surface+waves+over+grid-transformed+and+stair-stepped+topographies&rft.au=Ketcham%2C+Stephen+A%3BMoran%2C+Mark+L%3BAnderson%2C+Thomas+S%3BGreenfield%2C+Roy%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Ketcham&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=2003-12-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=46%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 2003 fall meeting 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 - arrival time; body waves; earthquakes; elastic waves; finite difference analysis; guided waves; numerical models; point sources; propagation; Rayleigh waves; S-waves; seismic waves; surface waves; three-dimensional models; time domain analysis; topography; transformations; velocity; wavelength ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Field test results of the CHARTS airborne coastal mapping and charting system AN - 50656237; 2008-082581 JF - Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AU - Lillycrop, W Jeff AU - Pope, Robert W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2003/12// PY - 2003 DA - December 2003 SP - Abstract G11A EP - 0248 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 84 IS - 46, suppl. SN - 0096-3941, 0096-3941 KW - United States KW - laser methods KW - geophysical methods KW - radar methods KW - mapping KW - Fort Lauderdale Florida KW - Florida KW - topography KW - lidar methods KW - Compact Hydrographic Airborne Rapid Total Survey KW - coastal environment KW - Broward County Florida KW - CHARTS system KW - airborne methods KW - 23:Geomorphology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50656237?accountid=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=Field+test+results+of+the+CHARTS+airborne+coastal+mapping+and+charting+system&rft.au=Lillycrop%2C+W+Jeff%3BPope%2C+Robert+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Lillycrop&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2003-12-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=46%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 2003 fall meeting 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 - airborne methods; Broward County Florida; CHARTS system; coastal environment; Compact Hydrographic Airborne Rapid Total Survey; Florida; Fort Lauderdale Florida; geophysical methods; laser methods; lidar methods; mapping; radar methods; topography; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Reservoir Simulations of Synthetic Rain Floods for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins AN - 20980084; 5777079 AB - In response to the destructive floods of 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Reclamation Board of the State of California are partnering a study to investigate flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration opportunities in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, California. This paper continues presentation of Comprehensive Study methods and details the construction and application of basin-wide reservoir models in support of ongoing system analyses. Discussion emphasizes model development, simulation results with a focus on headwater and major terminal reservoirs, and potential improvements to the flood damage reduction system. Conclusions are drawn regarding the influence of reservoirs in flood hydrology, use of HEC-5 software in flood analyses, and the role of this effort in the Comprehensive Study. JF - Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management AU - Hickey, J T AU - Bond, M V AU - Patton, T K AU - Richardson, KA AU - Pugner, P E AD - Water Resource Systems Division, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Inst. for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (USACE), 609 Second St., Davis, CA 95616, USA Y1 - 2003/12// PY - 2003 DA - Dec 2003 SP - 443 EP - 457 VL - 129 IS - 6 SN - 0733-9496, 0733-9496 KW - USA, California, Sacramento R. KW - USA, California, San Joaquin R. KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - River Basins KW - Flood Protection KW - Water Management KW - Water reservoirs KW - Ecosystems KW - Water resources KW - Freshwater KW - Restoration KW - Reservoir models KW - System analysis KW - Floods KW - Planning KW - Regional planning KW - USA, California KW - Computer Models KW - Reservoirs KW - Water resources planning KW - Flood damage KW - USA, California, Sacramento KW - Catchment Areas KW - River basins KW - Systems Analysis KW - Reclamation KW - Model Studies KW - Flood analysis KW - Reservoir Management KW - Flood Control KW - Numerical simulations KW - Flood hydrology KW - Water management KW - USA, California, San Joaquin R. basin KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 0835:Streamflow and runoff KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers KW - SW 4010:Techniques of planning KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) KW - M2 551.577:General Precipitation (551.577) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20980084?accountid=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=Reservoir+Simulations+of+Synthetic+Rain+Floods+for+the+Sacramento+and+San+Joaquin+River+Basins&rft.au=Hickey%2C+J+T%3BBond%2C+M+V%3BPatton%2C+T+K%3BRichardson%2C+KA%3BPugner%2C+P+E&rft.aulast=Hickey&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2003-12-01&rft.volume=129&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=443&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%282003%29129%3A6%28443%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water reservoirs; System analysis; Floods; Water management; Regional planning; Water resources; River basins; Reclamation; Restoration; Flood analysis; Ecosystems; Reservoir models; Flood hydrology; Numerical simulations; Water resources planning; Reservoirs; Flood damage; Flood Control; Reservoir Management; Water Management; Catchment Areas; Systems Analysis; Flood Protection; River Basins; Planning; Computer Models; Model Studies; USA, California, San Joaquin R. basin; USA, California, Sacramento; USA, California; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:6(443) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Progress in management of sediment bypassing at coastal inlets: Natural bypassing, weir jetties, jetty spurs, and engineering aids in design AN - 19942716; 5863500 AB - Maintenance of navigable channels at coastal inlets typically requires sediment bypassing to preserve integrity of the adjacent beaches. Artificial bypassing mimics or preserves the pathways of sediment in the littoral zone and harmonizes the requirement for deepening navigation channels within the context of the natural sediment-sharing system of inlets and beaches. A range of techniques can be applied to perform bypassing. Customary on-demand channel dredging is not always the best solution because sediment shoaling does not necessarily follow a predictable schedule, potentially compromising navigation reliability between allowable dredging windows. If sediment can be directed to a location other than the channel, planning of dredge operations may be optimized and less expensive equipment feasible. A weir jetty system is one such solution. This paper presents progress in understanding of sediment bypassing through analytical prediction and takes a lessons-learned approach to design and modification of weir jetty bypassing systems. Results from recent physical model studies of spur jetties are also discussed with regard to their control on the nearshore current at coastal inlets and how spurs can be designed to alter sediment bypassing. JF - Coastal Engineering Journal AU - Seabergh, W C AU - Kraus, N C AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 USA, William.C.Seabergh@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2003/12// PY - 2003 DA - Dec 2003 SP - 533 EP - 563 VL - 45 IS - 4 SN - 0578-5634, 0578-5634 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Marine KW - Beaches KW - Coastal engineering KW - Jetties KW - Inlets KW - Navigational channels KW - Port installations KW - Navigation KW - Channels KW - Weirs KW - Hydraulic structures KW - Coastal Engineering KW - Analytical techniques KW - Dredging KW - Coastal inlets KW - Sediment transport KW - Littoral zone KW - O 6090:Instruments/Methods KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q2 09327:Coast defences and harbour works UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19942716?accountid=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=Coastal+Engineering+Journal&rft.atitle=Progress+in+management+of+sediment+bypassing+at+coastal+inlets%3A+Natural+bypassing%2C+weir+jetties%2C+jetty+spurs%2C+and+engineering+aids+in+design&rft.au=Seabergh%2C+W+C%3BKraus%2C+N+C&rft.aulast=Seabergh&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2003-12-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=533&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering+Journal&rft.issn=05785634&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hydraulic structures; Weirs; Coastal engineering; Analytical techniques; Dredging; Navigational channels; Sediment transport; Port installations; Coastal inlets; Littoral zone; Channels; Beaches; Jetties; Coastal Engineering; Inlets; Navigation; Marine ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Analytical model of incipient breaching of coastal barriers AN - 16168367; 5863499 AB - A mathematical model is formulated to describe incipient breaching of coastal barrier islands. The model is based on the assumptions of idealized breach morphology and is intended to describe the growth of breaches prior to possible closure by longshore sediment transport. The two coupled, non-linear equations governing breach width and depth are solved analytically for special cases. The analytical solutions explicitly exhibit an exponential behavior in breach dimensions and reveal that the macroscale process of breach growth is controlled by seven variables: initial width and depth of the breach, equilibrium width and depth of the breach, width of the barrier island, and maximum or initial net sediment transport rates at the bottom and sides of the breach. The literature is reviewed to compile general properties of coastal breaches, and sensitivity testing shows the model to be compatible with those observations. The model is applied to simulate the 1980 breach at Moriches Inlet, New York, and reasonable agreement is found. JF - Coastal Engineering Journal AU - Kraus, N C AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 USA, Nicholas.C.Kraus.@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2003/12// PY - 2003 DA - Dec 2003 SP - 511 EP - 531 VL - 45 IS - 4 SN - 0578-5634, 0578-5634 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Sediment Transport KW - Marine KW - Longshore sediment transport KW - Coastal engineering KW - Barriers KW - Mathematical models KW - Inlets KW - Model Testing KW - Deposition features KW - USA, New York KW - Model Studies KW - Barrier Islands KW - Coastal landforms KW - Coastal Engineering KW - Coastal morphology KW - Analytical techniques KW - ANW, USA, New York, Long I., Moriches Bay KW - Barrier islands KW - Coastal inlets KW - Q2 09271:Coastal morphology KW - O 6060:Coastal Zone Resources and Management KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16168367?accountid=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=Coastal+Engineering+Journal&rft.atitle=Analytical+model+of+incipient+breaching+of+coastal+barriers&rft.au=Kraus%2C+N+C&rft.aulast=Kraus&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2003-12-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=511&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering+Journal&rft.issn=05785634&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Coastal engineering; Longshore sediment transport; Mathematical models; Coastal landforms; Coastal morphology; Analytical techniques; Coastal inlets; Barrier islands; Deposition features; Sediment Transport; Barriers; Coastal Engineering; Inlets; Model Testing; Barrier Islands; Model Studies; ANW, USA, New York, Long I., Moriches Bay; USA, New York; Marine ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36382166; 10511-030534_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline erosion control program along the Bogue Inlet to protect the town of Emerald Isle in southeastern North Carolina is proposed. Bogue Inlet, which is located on the border of Carteret and Onslow counties, provides access to recreational and commercial vessels between the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Bogue Inlet is bordered to the east by Bogue Banks approximately 25 miles west of Beaufort Inlet. The town of Emerald Isle encompasses the western 11 miles of the barrier island complex in Carteret County. West of Bogue Inlet is Bear Island, an undeveloped barrier island approximately three miles in length in eastern Onslow County. The town is suffering from the erosive effects of the eastward migration of the Bogue Inlet ocean bar channel, which has moved steadily eastward at an average rate of 93 feet per year. The eastward migration of the inlet channel has been accompanied by erosion of the inlet shoreline that borders the Pointe subdivision located on the extreme west end of the town. The eventually removal of existing sandbag revetments, which must be removed under state law, will result will result in the immediate loss of seven homes and a resumption of he erosion of the inlet shoreline. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives would include, variously, relocation of imperiled homes, construction of sandbag revetments, suspension of channel maintenance, channel replacement with or without beach nourishment, provision of a combination of sloping rubble revetment and terminal groin structures around the west end of the inlet shoreline into the ocean, and relocation of the Bogue Inlet bar channel through a dedicated program of channel maintenance in which material removed from the channel would be deposited on the Bogue Banks and Bear Island to maintain sediment balance on both islands. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would involve channel relocation with beach nourishment. The bar channel would be repositioned to a location between Bogue Banks and Bear Island and oriented along an alignment perpendicular to the adjacent islands. A portion of the material removed to create the new channel would be used to construct a sand dike across the existing channel, with the balance of the material used for beach nourishment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing near-term protection of the seven homes immediately threatened by the removal of the existing sandbag revetment, the project would provide for long-term protection to 31 to 50 homes and the associated town infrastructure over the next 10 years. Erosion along the Pointe shoreline would be eliminated or reduced. Public access from Inlet Drive to the inlet and beachfront shorelines would be re-established. The project would also improve recreational opportunities along the town's ocean shoreline and restore beach and inlet habitat along 700 feet of the Pointe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Channel dredging and beach nourishment would result in temporary disturbance of benthos, destruction of benthic habitat, and the release of sediments into the water column during dredging and disposition of sand. 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.), and River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). JF - EPA number: 030534, 707 pages and maps, Engineering and Geotechnical Studies--242 pages, November 19, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Waterways KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382166?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 19, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36381709; 10511-030534_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline erosion control program along the Bogue Inlet to protect the town of Emerald Isle in southeastern North Carolina is proposed. Bogue Inlet, which is located on the border of Carteret and Onslow counties, provides access to recreational and commercial vessels between the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Bogue Inlet is bordered to the east by Bogue Banks approximately 25 miles west of Beaufort Inlet. The town of Emerald Isle encompasses the western 11 miles of the barrier island complex in Carteret County. West of Bogue Inlet is Bear Island, an undeveloped barrier island approximately three miles in length in eastern Onslow County. The town is suffering from the erosive effects of the eastward migration of the Bogue Inlet ocean bar channel, which has moved steadily eastward at an average rate of 93 feet per year. The eastward migration of the inlet channel has been accompanied by erosion of the inlet shoreline that borders the Pointe subdivision located on the extreme west end of the town. The eventually removal of existing sandbag revetments, which must be removed under state law, will result will result in the immediate loss of seven homes and a resumption of he erosion of the inlet shoreline. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives would include, variously, relocation of imperiled homes, construction of sandbag revetments, suspension of channel maintenance, channel replacement with or without beach nourishment, provision of a combination of sloping rubble revetment and terminal groin structures around the west end of the inlet shoreline into the ocean, and relocation of the Bogue Inlet bar channel through a dedicated program of channel maintenance in which material removed from the channel would be deposited on the Bogue Banks and Bear Island to maintain sediment balance on both islands. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would involve channel relocation with beach nourishment. The bar channel would be repositioned to a location between Bogue Banks and Bear Island and oriented along an alignment perpendicular to the adjacent islands. A portion of the material removed to create the new channel would be used to construct a sand dike across the existing channel, with the balance of the material used for beach nourishment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing near-term protection of the seven homes immediately threatened by the removal of the existing sandbag revetment, the project would provide for long-term protection to 31 to 50 homes and the associated town infrastructure over the next 10 years. Erosion along the Pointe shoreline would be eliminated or reduced. Public access from Inlet Drive to the inlet and beachfront shorelines would be re-established. The project would also improve recreational opportunities along the town's ocean shoreline and restore beach and inlet habitat along 700 feet of the Pointe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Channel dredging and beach nourishment would result in temporary disturbance of benthos, destruction of benthic habitat, and the release of sediments into the water column during dredging and disposition of sand. 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.), and River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). JF - EPA number: 030534, 707 pages and maps, Engineering and Geotechnical Studies--242 pages, November 19, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Waterways KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 19, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36368167; 10511-030534_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline erosion control program along the Bogue Inlet to protect the town of Emerald Isle in southeastern North Carolina is proposed. Bogue Inlet, which is located on the border of Carteret and Onslow counties, provides access to recreational and commercial vessels between the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Bogue Inlet is bordered to the east by Bogue Banks approximately 25 miles west of Beaufort Inlet. The town of Emerald Isle encompasses the western 11 miles of the barrier island complex in Carteret County. West of Bogue Inlet is Bear Island, an undeveloped barrier island approximately three miles in length in eastern Onslow County. The town is suffering from the erosive effects of the eastward migration of the Bogue Inlet ocean bar channel, which has moved steadily eastward at an average rate of 93 feet per year. The eastward migration of the inlet channel has been accompanied by erosion of the inlet shoreline that borders the Pointe subdivision located on the extreme west end of the town. The eventually removal of existing sandbag revetments, which must be removed under state law, will result will result in the immediate loss of seven homes and a resumption of he erosion of the inlet shoreline. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives would include, variously, relocation of imperiled homes, construction of sandbag revetments, suspension of channel maintenance, channel replacement with or without beach nourishment, provision of a combination of sloping rubble revetment and terminal groin structures around the west end of the inlet shoreline into the ocean, and relocation of the Bogue Inlet bar channel through a dedicated program of channel maintenance in which material removed from the channel would be deposited on the Bogue Banks and Bear Island to maintain sediment balance on both islands. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would involve channel relocation with beach nourishment. The bar channel would be repositioned to a location between Bogue Banks and Bear Island and oriented along an alignment perpendicular to the adjacent islands. A portion of the material removed to create the new channel would be used to construct a sand dike across the existing channel, with the balance of the material used for beach nourishment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing near-term protection of the seven homes immediately threatened by the removal of the existing sandbag revetment, the project would provide for long-term protection to 31 to 50 homes and the associated town infrastructure over the next 10 years. Erosion along the Pointe shoreline would be eliminated or reduced. Public access from Inlet Drive to the inlet and beachfront shorelines would be re-established. The project would also improve recreational opportunities along the town's ocean shoreline and restore beach and inlet habitat along 700 feet of the Pointe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Channel dredging and beach nourishment would result in temporary disturbance of benthos, destruction of benthic habitat, and the release of sediments into the water column during dredging and disposition of sand. 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.), and River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). JF - EPA number: 030534, 707 pages and maps, Engineering and Geotechnical Studies--242 pages, November 19, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Waterways KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 19, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 36368127; 10511-030534_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline erosion control program along the Bogue Inlet to protect the town of Emerald Isle in southeastern North Carolina is proposed. Bogue Inlet, which is located on the border of Carteret and Onslow counties, provides access to recreational and commercial vessels between the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Bogue Inlet is bordered to the east by Bogue Banks approximately 25 miles west of Beaufort Inlet. The town of Emerald Isle encompasses the western 11 miles of the barrier island complex in Carteret County. West of Bogue Inlet is Bear Island, an undeveloped barrier island approximately three miles in length in eastern Onslow County. The town is suffering from the erosive effects of the eastward migration of the Bogue Inlet ocean bar channel, which has moved steadily eastward at an average rate of 93 feet per year. The eastward migration of the inlet channel has been accompanied by erosion of the inlet shoreline that borders the Pointe subdivision located on the extreme west end of the town. The eventually removal of existing sandbag revetments, which must be removed under state law, will result will result in the immediate loss of seven homes and a resumption of he erosion of the inlet shoreline. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives would include, variously, relocation of imperiled homes, construction of sandbag revetments, suspension of channel maintenance, channel replacement with or without beach nourishment, provision of a combination of sloping rubble revetment and terminal groin structures around the west end of the inlet shoreline into the ocean, and relocation of the Bogue Inlet bar channel through a dedicated program of channel maintenance in which material removed from the channel would be deposited on the Bogue Banks and Bear Island to maintain sediment balance on both islands. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would involve channel relocation with beach nourishment. The bar channel would be repositioned to a location between Bogue Banks and Bear Island and oriented along an alignment perpendicular to the adjacent islands. A portion of the material removed to create the new channel would be used to construct a sand dike across the existing channel, with the balance of the material used for beach nourishment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing near-term protection of the seven homes immediately threatened by the removal of the existing sandbag revetment, the project would provide for long-term protection to 31 to 50 homes and the associated town infrastructure over the next 10 years. Erosion along the Pointe shoreline would be eliminated or reduced. Public access from Inlet Drive to the inlet and beachfront shorelines would be re-established. The project would also improve recreational opportunities along the town's ocean shoreline and restore beach and inlet habitat along 700 feet of the Pointe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Channel dredging and beach nourishment would result in temporary disturbance of benthos, destruction of benthic habitat, and the release of sediments into the water column during dredging and disposition of sand. 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.), and River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). JF - EPA number: 030534, 707 pages and maps, Engineering and Geotechnical Studies--242 pages, November 19, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Waterways KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_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=unknown&rft.jtitle=The+Australian+Educational+and+Developmental+Psychologist&rft.atitle=Psychotherapy%2C+Pharmacotherapy%2C+and+Their+Combination+for+Adolescents+with+Major+Depressive+Disorder%3A+A+Meta-Analysis&rft.au=Singh%2C+Nikita%3B+Reece%2C+John&rft.aulast=Singh&rft.aufirst=Nikita&rft.date=2014-07-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=47&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Australian+Educational+and+Developmental+Psychologist&rft.issn=08165122&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017%2Fedp.2013.20 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 19, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BOGUE INLET CHANNEL EROSION RESPONSE PROJECT, EMERALD ISLE, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 16350799; 10511 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a shoreline erosion control program along the Bogue Inlet to protect the town of Emerald Isle in southeastern North Carolina is proposed. Bogue Inlet, which is located on the border of Carteret and Onslow counties, provides access to recreational and commercial vessels between the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Bogue Inlet is bordered to the east by Bogue Banks approximately 25 miles west of Beaufort Inlet. The town of Emerald Isle encompasses the western 11 miles of the barrier island complex in Carteret County. West of Bogue Inlet is Bear Island, an undeveloped barrier island approximately three miles in length in eastern Onslow County. The town is suffering from the erosive effects of the eastward migration of the Bogue Inlet ocean bar channel, which has moved steadily eastward at an average rate of 93 feet per year. The eastward migration of the inlet channel has been accompanied by erosion of the inlet shoreline that borders the Pointe subdivision located on the extreme west end of the town. The eventually removal of existing sandbag revetments, which must be removed under state law, will result will result in the immediate loss of seven homes and a resumption of he erosion of the inlet shoreline. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives would include, variously, relocation of imperiled homes, construction of sandbag revetments, suspension of channel maintenance, channel replacement with or without beach nourishment, provision of a combination of sloping rubble revetment and terminal groin structures around the west end of the inlet shoreline into the ocean, and relocation of the Bogue Inlet bar channel through a dedicated program of channel maintenance in which material removed from the channel would be deposited on the Bogue Banks and Bear Island to maintain sediment balance on both islands. The preferred alternative (Alternative F) would involve channel relocation with beach nourishment. The bar channel would be repositioned to a location between Bogue Banks and Bear Island and oriented along an alignment perpendicular to the adjacent islands. A portion of the material removed to create the new channel would be used to construct a sand dike across the existing channel, with the balance of the material used for beach nourishment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing near-term protection of the seven homes immediately threatened by the removal of the existing sandbag revetment, the project would provide for long-term protection to 31 to 50 homes and the associated town infrastructure over the next 10 years. Erosion along the Pointe shoreline would be eliminated or reduced. Public access from Inlet Drive to the inlet and beachfront shorelines would be re-established. The project would also improve recreational opportunities along the town's ocean shoreline and restore beach and inlet habitat along 700 feet of the Pointe. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Channel dredging and beach nourishment would result in temporary disturbance of benthos, destruction of benthic habitat, and the release of sediments into the water column during dredging and disposition of sand. 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.), and River and Harbor Act of 1960 (P.L. 86-645). JF - EPA number: 030534, 707 pages and maps, Engineering and Geotechnical Studies--242 pages, November 19, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Waterways KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16350799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-11-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BOGUE+INLET+CHANNEL+EROSION+RESPONSE+PROJECT%2C+EMERALD+ISLE%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 19, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT: NORTH LINK, SEATTLE, TUKWILA AND SEATAC, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1999). AN - 36432515; 10503 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an electric light-rail transit system in the Central Puget Sound region (Seattle, Tukwila, and SeaTac) of west-central Washington are proposed by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). The light-rail system, to be known as Central Link, would operate in an exclusive and semi-exclusive right-of-way between North Seattle and the city of SeaTac. The project would constitute a component of Sound Move, the 10-year program for regional high-capacity transportation. Issues addressed in the final EIS of November 1999 included those related to land use and economic development, displacement and relocation, neighborhoods and environmental justice, visual and aesthetic resources, air quality, noise and vibration, ecosystems, water quality and hydrology, energy use, geology and soils, hazardous materials, electromagnetic radiation, public services, utilities, historic and archaeologic sites, parklands, construction impacts, and cumulative impacts. Alternatives considered included a No-Build Alternative, two light-rail length alternatives, 24 rail route alternatives, 61 station options, and three alternative maintenance base sites. With 24 to 29 miles of light-rail line, the corridor is divided into six geographic segments, including: Segment A - Northgate to University District; Segment B - University District to Westlake Station; Segment C - Westlake Station to South McClellan Street; Segment D - South McClellan Street to Boeing Access, Segment E - Tukwila; and Segment F - SeaTac. For each segment, two to five route alternatives were considered. The segment alternatives would be linked to create a complete, operable light-rail system. System length alternatives would extend from the city of SeaTac, just south of Seattle-Tacoma (SeaTac) International Airport, to either Northeast Forty-Fifth Street (the University District) or Northgate in Seattle. Depending on the final decision with respect to alternative options, costs of the project, as estimated in the final EIS, ranged from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion. Locally preferred alternatives were identified for all but one segment, but no decision was made within the final EIS by the federal authorities. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses an alternative route through the city of Tukwila (Section E). The route selected by Sound Transit would primarily follow Tukwila International Boulevard (State Route (SR) 99), utilizing both elevated and at-grade sections in the median of the roadway. The alternatives evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS would constitute a north extension of the Central Link system, connecting to the rail systems initial segment in downtown Seattle and extending north to the University District and Northgate. The alternatives are considered in two geographic segments, with Segment A connecting the University District to Northgate and Segment B connecting downtown Seattle to the University District. Alternatives considered include the No-Build Alternative, three light rail route alternatives in Segment A, seven light rail route alternatives in Segment B, and 19 station options (including park-and-ride lots). Construction is expected to begin in 2006, with operation underway between 2013 and 2015. Capital costs for segments A and B are estimated to range from $410 million to $490 million and from $820 million to $1.03 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The system would connect the region's major activity centers, including Northgate, Roosevelt, the University District, Capitol Hill, First Hill, downtown Seattle, the Rainier Valley area, the City of Tukwila, and city of SeaTack, and the Sea-Tac International Airport. Seattle Center and South center Mall could also be served. These areas include the state's highest employment concentrations and contain the highest transit ridership. The system would expand transit capacity within the region's most densely populated and congested corridor, provide a practical alternative to driving on increasingly congested roadways, support comprehensive land use and transportation planning, provide environmental benefits, and improve mobility for travel-disadvantaged residents along he corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: System development would result in residential and commercial displacements, affect historic and archaeologic resources and parkland and wetland, impede non-motorized access at some locations. Vegetation and associated wildlife would be destroyed in some areas. Some neighborhoods, including those with low-income and minority populations, would suffer some impacts due to the visual intrusion of rail structures into their neighborhoods and barriers to movement resulting from the presence of the structures. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. System operation would result in some impacts due to noise and vibration. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0066D, Volume 23, Number 1 and 00-0096F, Volume 24, Number 1. For the abstracts of previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 01-0051D, Volume 25, Number 1 and 02-0071F, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030526, Draft EIS--751 pages, Drawings and Maps--321 pages (oversize, November 14, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Use KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance KW - Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36432515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%3A+NORTH+LINK%2C+SEATTLE%2C+TUKWILA+AND+SEATAC%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1999%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%3A+NORTH+LINK%2C+SEATTLE%2C+TUKWILA+AND+SEATAC%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1999%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 14, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT: NORTH LINK, SEATTLE, TUKWILA AND SEATAC, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1999). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT: NORTH LINK, SEATTLE, TUKWILA AND SEATAC, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 1999). AN - 36352349; 10503-030526_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an electric light-rail transit system in the Central Puget Sound region (Seattle, Tukwila, and SeaTac) of west-central Washington are proposed by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). The light-rail system, to be known as Central Link, would operate in an exclusive and semi-exclusive right-of-way between North Seattle and the city of SeaTac. The project would constitute a component of Sound Move, the 10-year program for regional high-capacity transportation. Issues addressed in the final EIS of November 1999 included those related to land use and economic development, displacement and relocation, neighborhoods and environmental justice, visual and aesthetic resources, air quality, noise and vibration, ecosystems, water quality and hydrology, energy use, geology and soils, hazardous materials, electromagnetic radiation, public services, utilities, historic and archaeologic sites, parklands, construction impacts, and cumulative impacts. Alternatives considered included a No-Build Alternative, two light-rail length alternatives, 24 rail route alternatives, 61 station options, and three alternative maintenance base sites. With 24 to 29 miles of light-rail line, the corridor is divided into six geographic segments, including: Segment A - Northgate to University District; Segment B - University District to Westlake Station; Segment C - Westlake Station to South McClellan Street; Segment D - South McClellan Street to Boeing Access, Segment E - Tukwila; and Segment F - SeaTac. For each segment, two to five route alternatives were considered. The segment alternatives would be linked to create a complete, operable light-rail system. System length alternatives would extend from the city of SeaTac, just south of Seattle-Tacoma (SeaTac) International Airport, to either Northeast Forty-Fifth Street (the University District) or Northgate in Seattle. Depending on the final decision with respect to alternative options, costs of the project, as estimated in the final EIS, ranged from $1.1 billion to $2.1 billion. Locally preferred alternatives were identified for all but one segment, but no decision was made within the final EIS by the federal authorities. This draft supplement to the final EIS addresses an alternative route through the city of Tukwila (Section E). The route selected by Sound Transit would primarily follow Tukwila International Boulevard (State Route (SR) 99), utilizing both elevated and at-grade sections in the median of the roadway. The alternatives evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS would constitute a north extension of the Central Link system, connecting to the rail systems initial segment in downtown Seattle and extending north to the University District and Northgate. The alternatives are considered in two geographic segments, with Segment A connecting the University District to Northgate and Segment B connecting downtown Seattle to the University District. Alternatives considered include the No-Build Alternative, three light rail route alternatives in Segment A, seven light rail route alternatives in Segment B, and 19 station options (including park-and-ride lots). Construction is expected to begin in 2006, with operation underway between 2013 and 2015. Capital costs for segments A and B are estimated to range from $410 million to $490 million and from $820 million to $1.03 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The system would connect the region's major activity centers, including Northgate, Roosevelt, the University District, Capitol Hill, First Hill, downtown Seattle, the Rainier Valley area, the City of Tukwila, and city of SeaTack, and the Sea-Tac International Airport. Seattle Center and South center Mall could also be served. These areas include the state's highest employment concentrations and contain the highest transit ridership. The system would expand transit capacity within the region's most densely populated and congested corridor, provide a practical alternative to driving on increasingly congested roadways, support comprehensive land use and transportation planning, provide environmental benefits, and improve mobility for travel-disadvantaged residents along he corridor. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: System development would result in residential and commercial displacements, affect historic and archaeologic resources and parkland and wetland, impede non-motorized access at some locations. Vegetation and associated wildlife would be destroyed in some areas. Some neighborhoods, including those with low-income and minority populations, would suffer some impacts due to the visual intrusion of rail structures into their neighborhoods and barriers to movement resulting from the presence of the structures. Hazardous materials sites would be encountered during construction. System operation would result in some impacts due to noise and vibration. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 99-0066D, Volume 23, Number 1 and 00-0096F, Volume 24, Number 1. For the abstracts of previous draft and final supplemental EISs, see 01-0051D, Volume 25, Number 1 and 02-0071F, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030526, Draft EIS--751 pages, Drawings and Maps--321 pages (oversize, November 14, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Historic Sites KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Use KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance KW - Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%3A+NORTH+LINK%2C+SEATTLE%2C+TUKWILA+AND+SEATAC%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1999%29.&rft.title=CENTRAL+LINK+LIGHT+RAIL+TRANSIT+PROJECT%3A+NORTH+LINK%2C+SEATTLE%2C+TUKWILA+AND+SEATAC%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+1999%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 14, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US ROUTE 67 (FAP 310) AND ILLINOIS ROUTE 336 (FAP 315), MACOMB AREA STUDY. MCDONOUGH COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US ROUTE 67 (FAP 310) AND ILLINOIS ROUTE 336 (FAP 315), MACOMB AREA STUDY. MCDONOUGH COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 36352983; 10493-030514_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12.7-mile access-controlled, four-lane highway in McDonough County, Illinois is proposed to allow for the continuation of US 67, US 136, and proposed Illinois 336 (IL 336) around the city of Macomb. The improvements would be part of a larger plan to complete the connection of west central Illinois to the interstate system at Galesburg, while providing connections to major population centers in west central Illinois and Iowa. The highway segment would begin as a point southwest of Macomb at the planned IL 336/US 136 interchange and continue within new rights-of-way northwest of Macomb to an interchange with US 67 north of Macomb. It would then proceed east and then south on a new rights-of-way to an interchange with US 136/US 67 east of Macomb. Wildlife habitat mitigation measures would include restoration of 87.6 acres of prairie and 41 acres of forest and grazing protection for 151.5 acres of upland forest, 34.8 acres of floodplain forest, and 3.2 acres of wetlands. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $148.4 million in 2000 dollars, including $2.3 million for rights-of-way costs. In addition to the preferred alternative, this draft EIS considers POSITIVE IMPACTS: The highway would remove through traffic from local streets in the city of Macomb and ease long-distance travel for regional and interstate drivers. The highway would also link east-west arterials, existing US 136, and proposed IL 336 to US 67. Economic development in the Macomb area would be enhanced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 706 acres, most of which is under agricultural development though the development corridor also contains woodland. Severance management zones would be created on 86.7 acres within 33 farms. Approximately 117.9 acres of agricultural land would be land-locked, reducing these areas to economically worthless remnants. The highway would bisect 24 farm units, either laterally or diagonally. Seven farm units would experience adverse travel conditions. Wildlife habitat associated with the displaced farmland and forest would be lost; affected ecosystems would include 75.9 acres of upland forest, 16.9 acres of floodplain forest, 31.6 acres of grassland, and 3.6 of fence row habitat. The project would encroach on three floodplains. Two sites containing petroleum wastes would be encountered during construction. Traffic-generated noise levels would approach or exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 15 residences. Views from 39 residences, a lakefront subdivision, and a prairie restoration areas would be marred by the presence of the highway. Approximately 2.55 acres of wetlands would be filled. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030514, 347 pages and maps, November 7, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-03-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+ROUTE+67+%28FAP+310%29+AND+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+336+%28FAP+315%29%2C+MACOMB+AREA+STUDY.+MCDONOUGH+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=US+ROUTE+67+%28FAP+310%29+AND+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+336+%28FAP+315%29%2C+MACOMB+AREA+STUDY.+MCDONOUGH+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US ROUTE 67 (FAP 310) AND ILLINOIS ROUTE 336 (FAP 315), MACOMB AREA STUDY. MCDONOUGH COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 16368700; 10493 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 12.7-mile access-controlled, four-lane highway in McDonough County, Illinois is proposed to allow for the continuation of US 67, US 136, and proposed Illinois 336 (IL 336) around the city of Macomb. The improvements would be part of a larger plan to complete the connection of west central Illinois to the interstate system at Galesburg, while providing connections to major population centers in west central Illinois and Iowa. The highway segment would begin as a point southwest of Macomb at the planned IL 336/US 136 interchange and continue within new rights-of-way northwest of Macomb to an interchange with US 67 north of Macomb. It would then proceed east and then south on a new rights-of-way to an interchange with US 136/US 67 east of Macomb. Wildlife habitat mitigation measures would include restoration of 87.6 acres of prairie and 41 acres of forest and grazing protection for 151.5 acres of upland forest, 34.8 acres of floodplain forest, and 3.2 acres of wetlands. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $148.4 million in 2000 dollars, including $2.3 million for rights-of-way costs. In addition to the preferred alternative, this draft EIS considers POSITIVE IMPACTS: The highway would remove through traffic from local streets in the city of Macomb and ease long-distance travel for regional and interstate drivers. The highway would also link east-west arterials, existing US 136, and proposed IL 336 to US 67. Economic development in the Macomb area would be enhanced significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 706 acres, most of which is under agricultural development though the development corridor also contains woodland. Severance management zones would be created on 86.7 acres within 33 farms. Approximately 117.9 acres of agricultural land would be land-locked, reducing these areas to economically worthless remnants. The highway would bisect 24 farm units, either laterally or diagonally. Seven farm units would experience adverse travel conditions. Wildlife habitat associated with the displaced farmland and forest would be lost; affected ecosystems would include 75.9 acres of upland forest, 16.9 acres of floodplain forest, 31.6 acres of grassland, and 3.6 of fence row habitat. The project would encroach on three floodplains. Two sites containing petroleum wastes would be encountered during construction. Traffic-generated noise levels would approach or exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 15 residences. Views from 39 residences, a lakefront subdivision, and a prairie restoration areas would be marred by the presence of the highway. Approximately 2.55 acres of wetlands would be filled. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030514, 347 pages and maps, November 7, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-03-01-D KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Range Management KW - Ranges KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Illinois KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16368700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-11-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+ROUTE+67+%28FAP+310%29+AND+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+336+%28FAP+315%29%2C+MACOMB+AREA+STUDY.+MCDONOUGH+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=US+ROUTE+67+%28FAP+310%29+AND+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+336+%28FAP+315%29%2C+MACOMB+AREA+STUDY.+MCDONOUGH+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT LNG PROJECT, FREEPORT LNG DEVELOPMENT, L.P., QUINTANA ISLAND, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS (DOCKET NO. CP03-75-000). AN - 16367381; 10491 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal facility on Quintana Island southeast of the city of Freeport in Brazoria County, Texas is proposed. Freeport LNG Development, L.P. proposes to construct and operate a new LNG import terminal, including an LNG tanker docking and unloading service facilities. In addition Freeport LNG would construct and operate a new natural gas pipeline and ancillary facilities in Brazoira County. More specifically, Freeport LNG would construct an LNG ship maneuvering area; a protected single berth unloading dock, equipped with three liquid unloading arms and one vapor return arm and mooring and breasting dolphins; a reconfigured storm protection levee and a permanent access road; two 26-inch-diameter double-walled stainless steel vacuum insulated LNG transfer lines and one 16-inch-diameter vapor return line; ancillary service pipelines; two double-walled LNG storage tanks, each with a nominal capacity of 1.0 million barrels (3.5 billion cubic feet of gas equivalent); six 3,240-gallon-per-minute (gpm) in-tank pumps; seven 2,315-gpm, high-pressure booster pumps; three boil-off gas compressors and a boil-off gas condensing system; six high-pressure LNG vaporizers uising a primary closed-circuit water/glycol solution heated with 12 water/glycol boilers during cold weather and a set of intermediate heat exchangers using a secondary circulating water system heated by an air tower during warm weather, and circulation pumps for both systems; two natural gas superheaters and two fuel gas heaters; and a fire response system, a natural gas flare system, a construction dock, utilities, buildings, access roadways, and service facilities. The associated pipeline system in Brazoria County would consist of 9.6 miles of 36 -inch-diameter natural gas pipeline extending from the LNG terminal to the proposed Stratton Ridge Meter Station as well as pig-launcher, pig-receiver, and metering facilities. In addition to Freeport LNG's proposal, this draft EIS considers a No-Action Alternative and a posponed action alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The port terminal would provide facilities necessary to deliver imported LNG to shippers, including Dow Chemical Company, at the proposed Stratton Ridge Meter Station by 2007. The proposed facilities would re-vaporize up to 1.5 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas and transport the product to the Texas intrastate market. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would affect 296 acres of land and water, including 188.2 acres to be developed for the LNG terminal and 107.8 acres to be developed for the pipeline system. Approximately 119.7 acres at the LNG terminal would be displaced by permanent facilities, the remainder being affected only by temporary construction areas. Following construction of the pipeline, approximately 41.4 acres, including 3.8 acres of grassland/pasture at the Stratton Ridge Meter Station, would be retained as permanent rights-of-way. Approximately 80.9 acres of wetlands would be affected, including 42.6 acres that would be permanently displaced. Approximately 201 acres of vegetation would be disturbed, including 103.3 acres that would be permanently displaced. The terminal facility would lie in an area affected by subsidence; measures would be taken to address this potential problem. Shoreline erosion problems in the area could be exacerbated by construction and operation of the terminal. Hydric soils present throughout the site and along the pipeline route would be replaced by upland soils. The pipeline would traverse four perennial waterbodies and two intermittent waterbodies. One residence would be relocated or demolished prior to the construction of the marine berth on QUintana Island, and 13 residences would lie within 50 feet of the construction work areas for the pipeline. A county boat ramp and the Xeriscape Park on the island would also be relocated. The LNG storage tanks and other LNG terminal facilities would impinge visually on the surrounding area. Thermal impacts of terminal operation could be significant. Cultural resource surveys have not yet been undertaken. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 030512, Executive Summary--7 pages, Draft EIS--401 pages, November 6, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0164D KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Erosion Control KW - Harbor Structures KW - Islands KW - Natural Gas KW - Parks KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Shores KW - Site Planning KW - Storage KW - Subsidence KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Quintana Island KW - Texas KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing 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/16367381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-11-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+LNG+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT+LNG+DEVELOPMENT%2C+L.P.%2C+QUINTANA+ISLAND%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP03-75-000%29.&rft.title=FREEPORT+LNG+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT+LNG+DEVELOPMENT%2C+L.P.%2C+QUINTANA+ISLAND%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS+%28DOCKET+NO.+CP03-75-000%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: November 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EMERALD CREEK GARNET MINE, BENEWAH AND SHOSHONE COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 36434170; 10487 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 Clean Water Act, requiring issuance of a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to the mining interest, Emerals 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 draft 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. 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 however 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 instream 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.). JF - EPA number: 030508, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--422 pages and maps, November 4, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Land Use KW - Channels KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Metals KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers 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/36434170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-11-04&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 - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EMERALD CREEK GARNET MINE, BENEWAH AND SHOSHONE COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - EMERALD CREEK GARNET MINE, BENEWAH AND SHOSHONE COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 36354048; 10487-030508_0002 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 Clean Water Act, requiring issuance of a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to the mining interest, Emerals 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 draft 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. 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 however 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 instream 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.). JF - EPA number: 030508, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--422 pages and maps, November 4, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Channels KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Metals KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers 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/36354048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-04&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 - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EMERALD CREEK GARNET MINE, BENEWAH AND SHOSHONE COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - EMERALD CREEK GARNET MINE, BENEWAH AND SHOSHONE COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 36353083; 10487-030508_0001 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 Clean Water Act, requiring issuance of a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to the mining interest, Emerals 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 draft 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. 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 however 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 instream 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.). JF - EPA number: 030508, Draft EIS--278 pages and maps, Technical Appendices--422 pages and maps, November 4, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Channels KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Employment KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Metals KW - Mining KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers 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/36353083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-04&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 - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. AN - 36356478; 10486-030507_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the permitted size of the tailings disposal area at the Greens Creek Mine in the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska is proposed in order to accommodate known and projected ore reserves. The mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on northern Admiralty Island located approximately 18 miles southwest of Juneau. The mine is situated in the Greens Creek watershed within the Admiralty Island National Monument. Based on known reserves and the current rate of production, the mine has a remaining life of 12 years. The applicant for the permit, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, expects to backfill approximately half the tailings and use surface disposal at rates up to 270,000 tons per year. At that rate, surface disposal capacity for the proposed 3.5 million tons of tailings would be needed during the remaining life of the mine. Under the current permit, however, the existing tailings facility has space for only 1.0 million tons. In addition to the known reserves, past success in exploration indicates the likelihood that geologists may discover new deposits in the area. The applicant has indicated that such discoveries could mean that the mine life would extend an additional 10 years and surface disposal space would be needed for at least another 3.0 million tons of tailings. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would involve designation of an additional dry tailings disposal storage area to provide enough disposal capacity for 10.8 million cubic yards of tailings for the potential 22-year life of the mine. Permitting the expansion in storage capacity would require modification of the lease held by the applicant. The lease area for the existing tailings facility covers 56 acres. The proposed action would expand the area by 84.5 acres, primarily to the west and south. Tailings disposal would occur on 40 acres within the new area; the remaining 44.5 acres would be used for rock quarries, a stormwater pond system, and storage area for reclamation materials, as well as a possible new water treatment plant and other potential long-term tailings disposal needs. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would expand the tailings area to the east of the present location and require a continuous carbon addition to the tailings. The tailings lease area would extend over 123 acres and the tailings footprint would encompass 62 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for continued production of metals by the Green Creeks Mine, providing for national demands for these materials for various purposes. The mine would employ a significant number of local and regional workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations would undermine the natural, scenic, and recreational values of the national monument. Area hydrology would be altered significantly and vegetation and wetlands would be displaced, along with the associated wildlife habitat. Subsistence activities would be affected somewhat. Mining equipment and the disturbance of soils by such equipment would result in the emission of particulates and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0270D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030507, Final EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--461 pages, CD-ROM, November 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Monuments KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Admiralty Island National Monument KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. AN - 36356348; 10486-030507_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the permitted size of the tailings disposal area at the Greens Creek Mine in the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska is proposed in order to accommodate known and projected ore reserves. The mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on northern Admiralty Island located approximately 18 miles southwest of Juneau. The mine is situated in the Greens Creek watershed within the Admiralty Island National Monument. Based on known reserves and the current rate of production, the mine has a remaining life of 12 years. The applicant for the permit, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, expects to backfill approximately half the tailings and use surface disposal at rates up to 270,000 tons per year. At that rate, surface disposal capacity for the proposed 3.5 million tons of tailings would be needed during the remaining life of the mine. Under the current permit, however, the existing tailings facility has space for only 1.0 million tons. In addition to the known reserves, past success in exploration indicates the likelihood that geologists may discover new deposits in the area. The applicant has indicated that such discoveries could mean that the mine life would extend an additional 10 years and surface disposal space would be needed for at least another 3.0 million tons of tailings. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would involve designation of an additional dry tailings disposal storage area to provide enough disposal capacity for 10.8 million cubic yards of tailings for the potential 22-year life of the mine. Permitting the expansion in storage capacity would require modification of the lease held by the applicant. The lease area for the existing tailings facility covers 56 acres. The proposed action would expand the area by 84.5 acres, primarily to the west and south. Tailings disposal would occur on 40 acres within the new area; the remaining 44.5 acres would be used for rock quarries, a stormwater pond system, and storage area for reclamation materials, as well as a possible new water treatment plant and other potential long-term tailings disposal needs. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would expand the tailings area to the east of the present location and require a continuous carbon addition to the tailings. The tailings lease area would extend over 123 acres and the tailings footprint would encompass 62 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for continued production of metals by the Green Creeks Mine, providing for national demands for these materials for various purposes. The mine would employ a significant number of local and regional workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations would undermine the natural, scenic, and recreational values of the national monument. Area hydrology would be altered significantly and vegetation and wetlands would be displaced, along with the associated wildlife habitat. Subsistence activities would be affected somewhat. Mining equipment and the disturbance of soils by such equipment would result in the emission of particulates and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0270D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030507, Final EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--461 pages, CD-ROM, November 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Monuments KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Admiralty Island National Monument KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36356348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. AN - 36354116; 10486-030507_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the permitted size of the tailings disposal area at the Greens Creek Mine in the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska is proposed in order to accommodate known and projected ore reserves. The mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on northern Admiralty Island located approximately 18 miles southwest of Juneau. The mine is situated in the Greens Creek watershed within the Admiralty Island National Monument. Based on known reserves and the current rate of production, the mine has a remaining life of 12 years. The applicant for the permit, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, expects to backfill approximately half the tailings and use surface disposal at rates up to 270,000 tons per year. At that rate, surface disposal capacity for the proposed 3.5 million tons of tailings would be needed during the remaining life of the mine. Under the current permit, however, the existing tailings facility has space for only 1.0 million tons. In addition to the known reserves, past success in exploration indicates the likelihood that geologists may discover new deposits in the area. The applicant has indicated that such discoveries could mean that the mine life would extend an additional 10 years and surface disposal space would be needed for at least another 3.0 million tons of tailings. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would involve designation of an additional dry tailings disposal storage area to provide enough disposal capacity for 10.8 million cubic yards of tailings for the potential 22-year life of the mine. Permitting the expansion in storage capacity would require modification of the lease held by the applicant. The lease area for the existing tailings facility covers 56 acres. The proposed action would expand the area by 84.5 acres, primarily to the west and south. Tailings disposal would occur on 40 acres within the new area; the remaining 44.5 acres would be used for rock quarries, a stormwater pond system, and storage area for reclamation materials, as well as a possible new water treatment plant and other potential long-term tailings disposal needs. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would expand the tailings area to the east of the present location and require a continuous carbon addition to the tailings. The tailings lease area would extend over 123 acres and the tailings footprint would encompass 62 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for continued production of metals by the Green Creeks Mine, providing for national demands for these materials for various purposes. The mine would employ a significant number of local and regional workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations would undermine the natural, scenic, and recreational values of the national monument. Area hydrology would be altered significantly and vegetation and wetlands would be displaced, along with the associated wildlife habitat. Subsistence activities would be affected somewhat. Mining equipment and the disturbance of soils by such equipment would result in the emission of particulates and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0270D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030507, Final EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--461 pages, CD-ROM, November 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Monuments KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Admiralty Island National Monument KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. AN - 36354024; 10486-030507_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the permitted size of the tailings disposal area at the Greens Creek Mine in the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska is proposed in order to accommodate known and projected ore reserves. The mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on northern Admiralty Island located approximately 18 miles southwest of Juneau. The mine is situated in the Greens Creek watershed within the Admiralty Island National Monument. Based on known reserves and the current rate of production, the mine has a remaining life of 12 years. The applicant for the permit, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, expects to backfill approximately half the tailings and use surface disposal at rates up to 270,000 tons per year. At that rate, surface disposal capacity for the proposed 3.5 million tons of tailings would be needed during the remaining life of the mine. Under the current permit, however, the existing tailings facility has space for only 1.0 million tons. In addition to the known reserves, past success in exploration indicates the likelihood that geologists may discover new deposits in the area. The applicant has indicated that such discoveries could mean that the mine life would extend an additional 10 years and surface disposal space would be needed for at least another 3.0 million tons of tailings. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would involve designation of an additional dry tailings disposal storage area to provide enough disposal capacity for 10.8 million cubic yards of tailings for the potential 22-year life of the mine. Permitting the expansion in storage capacity would require modification of the lease held by the applicant. The lease area for the existing tailings facility covers 56 acres. The proposed action would expand the area by 84.5 acres, primarily to the west and south. Tailings disposal would occur on 40 acres within the new area; the remaining 44.5 acres would be used for rock quarries, a stormwater pond system, and storage area for reclamation materials, as well as a possible new water treatment plant and other potential long-term tailings disposal needs. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would expand the tailings area to the east of the present location and require a continuous carbon addition to the tailings. The tailings lease area would extend over 123 acres and the tailings footprint would encompass 62 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for continued production of metals by the Green Creeks Mine, providing for national demands for these materials for various purposes. The mine would employ a significant number of local and regional workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations would undermine the natural, scenic, and recreational values of the national monument. Area hydrology would be altered significantly and vegetation and wetlands would be displaced, along with the associated wildlife habitat. Subsistence activities would be affected somewhat. Mining equipment and the disturbance of soils by such equipment would result in the emission of particulates and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0270D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030507, Final EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--461 pages, CD-ROM, November 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Monuments KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Admiralty Island National Monument KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. AN - 36353552; 10486-030507_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the permitted size of the tailings disposal area at the Greens Creek Mine in the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska is proposed in order to accommodate known and projected ore reserves. The mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on northern Admiralty Island located approximately 18 miles southwest of Juneau. The mine is situated in the Greens Creek watershed within the Admiralty Island National Monument. Based on known reserves and the current rate of production, the mine has a remaining life of 12 years. The applicant for the permit, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, expects to backfill approximately half the tailings and use surface disposal at rates up to 270,000 tons per year. At that rate, surface disposal capacity for the proposed 3.5 million tons of tailings would be needed during the remaining life of the mine. Under the current permit, however, the existing tailings facility has space for only 1.0 million tons. In addition to the known reserves, past success in exploration indicates the likelihood that geologists may discover new deposits in the area. The applicant has indicated that such discoveries could mean that the mine life would extend an additional 10 years and surface disposal space would be needed for at least another 3.0 million tons of tailings. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would involve designation of an additional dry tailings disposal storage area to provide enough disposal capacity for 10.8 million cubic yards of tailings for the potential 22-year life of the mine. Permitting the expansion in storage capacity would require modification of the lease held by the applicant. The lease area for the existing tailings facility covers 56 acres. The proposed action would expand the area by 84.5 acres, primarily to the west and south. Tailings disposal would occur on 40 acres within the new area; the remaining 44.5 acres would be used for rock quarries, a stormwater pond system, and storage area for reclamation materials, as well as a possible new water treatment plant and other potential long-term tailings disposal needs. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would expand the tailings area to the east of the present location and require a continuous carbon addition to the tailings. The tailings lease area would extend over 123 acres and the tailings footprint would encompass 62 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for continued production of metals by the Green Creeks Mine, providing for national demands for these materials for various purposes. The mine would employ a significant number of local and regional workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations would undermine the natural, scenic, and recreational values of the national monument. Area hydrology would be altered significantly and vegetation and wetlands would be displaced, along with the associated wildlife habitat. Subsistence activities would be affected somewhat. Mining equipment and the disturbance of soils by such equipment would result in the emission of particulates and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0270D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030507, Final EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--461 pages, CD-ROM, November 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Monuments KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Admiralty Island National Monument KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. AN - 36352882; 10486-030507_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the permitted size of the tailings disposal area at the Greens Creek Mine in the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska is proposed in order to accommodate known and projected ore reserves. The mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on northern Admiralty Island located approximately 18 miles southwest of Juneau. The mine is situated in the Greens Creek watershed within the Admiralty Island National Monument. Based on known reserves and the current rate of production, the mine has a remaining life of 12 years. The applicant for the permit, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, expects to backfill approximately half the tailings and use surface disposal at rates up to 270,000 tons per year. At that rate, surface disposal capacity for the proposed 3.5 million tons of tailings would be needed during the remaining life of the mine. Under the current permit, however, the existing tailings facility has space for only 1.0 million tons. In addition to the known reserves, past success in exploration indicates the likelihood that geologists may discover new deposits in the area. The applicant has indicated that such discoveries could mean that the mine life would extend an additional 10 years and surface disposal space would be needed for at least another 3.0 million tons of tailings. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would involve designation of an additional dry tailings disposal storage area to provide enough disposal capacity for 10.8 million cubic yards of tailings for the potential 22-year life of the mine. Permitting the expansion in storage capacity would require modification of the lease held by the applicant. The lease area for the existing tailings facility covers 56 acres. The proposed action would expand the area by 84.5 acres, primarily to the west and south. Tailings disposal would occur on 40 acres within the new area; the remaining 44.5 acres would be used for rock quarries, a stormwater pond system, and storage area for reclamation materials, as well as a possible new water treatment plant and other potential long-term tailings disposal needs. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would expand the tailings area to the east of the present location and require a continuous carbon addition to the tailings. The tailings lease area would extend over 123 acres and the tailings footprint would encompass 62 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for continued production of metals by the Green Creeks Mine, providing for national demands for these materials for various purposes. The mine would employ a significant number of local and regional workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations would undermine the natural, scenic, and recreational values of the national monument. Area hydrology would be altered significantly and vegetation and wetlands would be displaced, along with the associated wildlife habitat. Subsistence activities would be affected somewhat. Mining equipment and the disturbance of soils by such equipment would result in the emission of particulates and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0270D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030507, Final EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--461 pages, CD-ROM, November 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Monuments KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Admiralty Island National Monument KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. AN - 36352253; 10486-030507_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the permitted size of the tailings disposal area at the Greens Creek Mine in the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska is proposed in order to accommodate known and projected ore reserves. The mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on northern Admiralty Island located approximately 18 miles southwest of Juneau. The mine is situated in the Greens Creek watershed within the Admiralty Island National Monument. Based on known reserves and the current rate of production, the mine has a remaining life of 12 years. The applicant for the permit, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, expects to backfill approximately half the tailings and use surface disposal at rates up to 270,000 tons per year. At that rate, surface disposal capacity for the proposed 3.5 million tons of tailings would be needed during the remaining life of the mine. Under the current permit, however, the existing tailings facility has space for only 1.0 million tons. In addition to the known reserves, past success in exploration indicates the likelihood that geologists may discover new deposits in the area. The applicant has indicated that such discoveries could mean that the mine life would extend an additional 10 years and surface disposal space would be needed for at least another 3.0 million tons of tailings. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would involve designation of an additional dry tailings disposal storage area to provide enough disposal capacity for 10.8 million cubic yards of tailings for the potential 22-year life of the mine. Permitting the expansion in storage capacity would require modification of the lease held by the applicant. The lease area for the existing tailings facility covers 56 acres. The proposed action would expand the area by 84.5 acres, primarily to the west and south. Tailings disposal would occur on 40 acres within the new area; the remaining 44.5 acres would be used for rock quarries, a stormwater pond system, and storage area for reclamation materials, as well as a possible new water treatment plant and other potential long-term tailings disposal needs. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would expand the tailings area to the east of the present location and require a continuous carbon addition to the tailings. The tailings lease area would extend over 123 acres and the tailings footprint would encompass 62 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for continued production of metals by the Green Creeks Mine, providing for national demands for these materials for various purposes. The mine would employ a significant number of local and regional workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations would undermine the natural, scenic, and recreational values of the national monument. Area hydrology would be altered significantly and vegetation and wetlands would be displaced, along with the associated wildlife habitat. Subsistence activities would be affected somewhat. Mining equipment and the disturbance of soils by such equipment would result in the emission of particulates and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0270D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030507, Final EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--461 pages, CD-ROM, November 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Monuments KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Admiralty Island National Monument KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - GREENS CREEK TAILINGS DISPOSAL, JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, ALASKA. AN - 36352209; 10486-030507_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the permitted size of the tailings disposal area at the Greens Creek Mine in the Juneau Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Alaska is proposed in order to accommodate known and projected ore reserves. The mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on northern Admiralty Island located approximately 18 miles southwest of Juneau. The mine is situated in the Greens Creek watershed within the Admiralty Island National Monument. Based on known reserves and the current rate of production, the mine has a remaining life of 12 years. The applicant for the permit, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, expects to backfill approximately half the tailings and use surface disposal at rates up to 270,000 tons per year. At that rate, surface disposal capacity for the proposed 3.5 million tons of tailings would be needed during the remaining life of the mine. Under the current permit, however, the existing tailings facility has space for only 1.0 million tons. In addition to the known reserves, past success in exploration indicates the likelihood that geologists may discover new deposits in the area. The applicant has indicated that such discoveries could mean that the mine life would extend an additional 10 years and surface disposal space would be needed for at least another 3.0 million tons of tailings. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative B) would involve designation of an additional dry tailings disposal storage area to provide enough disposal capacity for 10.8 million cubic yards of tailings for the potential 22-year life of the mine. Permitting the expansion in storage capacity would require modification of the lease held by the applicant. The lease area for the existing tailings facility covers 56 acres. The proposed action would expand the area by 84.5 acres, primarily to the west and south. Tailings disposal would occur on 40 acres within the new area; the remaining 44.5 acres would be used for rock quarries, a stormwater pond system, and storage area for reclamation materials, as well as a possible new water treatment plant and other potential long-term tailings disposal needs. The preferred alternative (Alternative C) would expand the tailings area to the east of the present location and require a continuous carbon addition to the tailings. The tailings lease area would extend over 123 acres and the tailings footprint would encompass 62 acres. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Issuance of the permit would allow for continued production of metals by the Green Creeks Mine, providing for national demands for these materials for various purposes. The mine would employ a significant number of local and regional workers and otherwise contribute to the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining operations would undermine the natural, scenic, and recreational values of the national monument. Area hydrology would be altered significantly and vegetation and wetlands would be displaced, along with the associated wildlife habitat. Subsistence activities would be affected somewhat. Mining equipment and the disturbance of soils by such equipment would result in the emission of particulates and other air pollutants into the atmosphere. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0270D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030507, Final EIS--337 pages and maps, Appendices--461 pages, CD-ROM, November 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Disposal KW - Drainage KW - Employment KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Monuments KW - Quarries KW - Reclamation KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Management KW - Water Quality KW - Water Treatment KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Admiralty Island National Monument KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GREENS+CREEK+TAILINGS+DISPOSAL%2C+JUNEAU+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Juneau, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Implications of magnetic backgrounds for unexploded ordnance detection AN - 51858345; 2004-031298 AB - Detection of buried unexploded ordnance (UXO) requires application of geophysical methods that exploit contrasts in magnetic susceptibility and/or electrical conductivity of the UXO relative to surrounding soil and rock (the geologic background). At many sites, the contrasts are very large, and the detection capability is relatively independent of the geologic background. Some sites, however, are predictably problematic, such as volcanic terrains (e.g., Maui and Kaho'olawe, HI, USA). Other sites that would not intuitively be predicted to pose detection problems are found to have localized high susceptibility zones with wavelengths and magnitudes that can significantly complicate UXO detection. Details of a site in Indiana (USA) are presented that illustrate order of magnitude variation of magnetic susceptibility over distances of 2-3 m. Magnetic susceptibility at the site correlates to topography and soil type. Magnetic power spectral density plots from magnetic surveys at selected areas at the Indiana site are compared to each other and to data from Maui, HI, and demonstrate the key issues in UXO detection with magnetometry. Magnetic susceptibility data from Kaho'olawe are used to illustrate the effects on electromagnetic induction surveys for UXO detection and discrimination. The phenomenological observations suggest approaches for magnetic and electromagnetic induction survey data processing to enhance anomaly detectability and model-based inversion. JF - Journal of Applied Geophysics AU - Butler, Dwain K Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 111 EP - 125 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 54 IS - 1-2 SN - 0926-9851, 0926-9851 KW - United States KW - electrical conductivity KW - geophysical surveys KW - magnetic properties KW - topography KW - military geology KW - explosives KW - Indiana KW - soils KW - bedrock KW - ground methods KW - geophysical methods KW - electrical methods KW - magnetic methods KW - magnetic anomalies KW - Hawaii KW - paleomagnetism KW - inverse problem KW - East Pacific Ocean Islands KW - Maui County Hawaii KW - Maui KW - wavelength KW - models KW - detection KW - magnetic susceptibility KW - Oceania KW - surveys KW - Polynesia KW - 20:Applied geophysics KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51858345?accountid=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=unknown&rft.jtitle=Psychotherapy+and+Psychosomatics&rft.atitle=Cost-Utility+Analyses+of+Cognitive-Behavioural+Therapy+of+Depression%3A+A+Systematic+Review&rft.au=Brettschneider%2C+Christian%3B+Djadran%2C+Helei%3B+H%C3%A4rter%2C+Martin%3B+L%C3%B6we%2C+Bernd%3B+Riedel-heller%2C+Steffi%3B+K%C3%B6nig%2C+Hans-helmut&rft.aulast=Brettschneider&rft.aufirst=Christian&rft.date=2015-01-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=6&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Psychotherapy+and+Psychosomatics&rft.issn=00333190&rft_id=info:doi/10.1159%2F000365150 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09269851 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 34 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GEOXAV N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bedrock; detection; East Pacific Ocean Islands; electrical conductivity; electrical methods; explosives; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; ground methods; Hawaii; Indiana; inverse problem; magnetic anomalies; magnetic methods; magnetic properties; magnetic susceptibility; Maui; Maui County Hawaii; military geology; models; Oceania; paleomagnetism; Polynesia; soils; surveys; topography; United States; wavelength DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2003.08.022 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of arroyo sediment influxes on the Rio Grande River channel near El Paso, Texas AN - 51828382; 2004-052961 JF - Environmental & Engineering Geoscience AU - Jepsen, Richard AU - Langford, Richard P AU - Roberts, Jesse AU - Gailani, Joseph Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 305 EP - 312 PB - Association of Engineering Geologists and the Geological Society of America, College Station, TX VL - 9 IS - 4 SN - 1078-7275, 1078-7275 KW - United States KW - Rio Grande KW - granulometry KW - El Paso Texas KW - geologic hazards KW - arroyos KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - shear stress KW - grain size KW - El Paso County Texas KW - Texas KW - erosion features KW - simulation KW - physical models KW - relief KW - topography KW - sediments KW - fluvial features KW - floods KW - Rio Grande Valley KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51828382?accountid=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=Effects+of+arroyo+sediment+influxes+on+the+Rio+Grande+River+channel+near+El+Paso%2C+Texas&rft.au=Jepsen%2C+Richard%3BLangford%2C+Richard+P%3BRoberts%2C+Jesse%3BGailani%2C+Joseph&rft.aulast=Jepsen&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=305&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+%26+Engineering+Geoscience&rft.issn=10787275&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://eeg.geoscienceworld.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 7 N1 - PubXState - TX N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. table, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ENGEA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - arroyos; El Paso County Texas; El Paso Texas; erosion; erosion features; floods; fluvial features; geologic hazards; grain size; granulometry; physical models; relief; Rio Grande; Rio Grande Valley; sediment transport; sediments; shear stress; simulation; Texas; topography; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Historical development of engineered waterways in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, Iraq AN - 51788299; 2004-081423 AB - Drainage systems have been engineered in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, the "Cradle of Civilization", for more than six millennia. The first canals were constructed by the Sumarians for irrigation in the southern valley. Because of the high degree of administrative control required to develop, maintain, and defend complex irrigation systems, Sumarian city-states essentially became "irrigation cities". The system was expanded as populations moved northward and the requisite centralized administrative skills became available. The establishment of Baghdad in the upper valley around 750 AD by the Abbasid Caliphate led to development of an even more extensive system of canals for irrigation, flood control, and swamp drainage. Remnants of this system still exist and are functional today. The waterway system continued to expand until administrative and political weakness in the Caliphate allowed it to fall into disuse in the 13th century. The Mongol invasion of the late 13th century ensured decline in the waterway system because the invaders lacked the desire and administrative skills to maintain the complicated system. Plans for rebuilding were initiated early in the 20th century by the British and repair of old systems and construction of new are ongoing. Most new construction has occurred in the delta along the Shatt al Arab to drain the marshes. Engineered waterways serve three purposes--irrigation, flood control, and drainage. Irrigation structures occur throughout the valley, whereas drainage structures are most common in the delta of the two rivers, south of An Nasiriya. Flood control structures, mostly in central Iraq, tend to consist of off-river overflow basins in non-irrigated areas. The Euphrates, slightly higher in elevation than the Tigris, functions as the water source, and the Tigris serves as the drain. We will show examples of engineered waterways to include ancient canals once used for shipping but now restricted to irrigation purposes, older local canal systems, overlays of modern canal systems on older systems, examples of salt intrusion, and modern flood control systems in the area between Baghdad and An Nasiriya using high resolution satellite imagery. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Markley, Bruce L AU - Sims, Todd J AU - Ehlen, Judy AU - Flood, Kathleen L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 141 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 35 IS - 6 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - civil engineering KW - geologic hazards KW - Tigris River KW - human activity KW - agriculture KW - channels KW - Iraq KW - Baghdad Iraq KW - irrigation KW - history KW - controls KW - Euphrates River KW - floods KW - waterways KW - Asia KW - Middle East KW - land use KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51788299?accountid=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=Historical+development+of+engineered+waterways+in+the+Tigris-Euphrates+valley%2C+Iraq&rft.au=Markley%2C+Bruce+L%3BSims%2C+Todd+J%3BEhlen%2C+Judy%3BFlood%2C+Kathleen+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Markley&rft.aufirst=Bruce&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=141&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, 2003 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - agriculture; Asia; Baghdad Iraq; channels; civil engineering; controls; Euphrates River; floods; geologic hazards; history; human activity; Iraq; irrigation; land use; Middle East; Tigris River; waterways ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Some indicators for groundwater reservoir by digital fracture mapping AN - 51783885; 2004-081615 AB - This study aims to provide detailed information for planning water well placement in the public installation. We surveyed for the new groundwater well placement in four areas located around different districts. Each area has a different index, such as object area, geology and geographical status. Digital fracture mapping was available, but no other way was possible because of laying facilities under the ground. To understand fracture system for underground reservoir, structurally classified lineaments from landsat images of IKONOS (1m) overlapped on digital topographic map. Digital fracture mapping (1:5,000) using GPS (resolution: about 15cm and 1m) was based on denuding structural episode and fracture grade for the object area. To understand horizontal and vertical fracture geometry, we used programs to lay structural elements accurately on a cross section. Multi-trend cross sections transferred to fence diagram. Finally, fence diagram induced to 3-D block diagram. Area-H has the largest surface with airfield and consists of Proterozoic paragneiss (ca. 2.0 Ga.) and Jurassic granitoids (ca. 180 Ma.). NE shearing and superposed folds formed a curved triangular shadow zone. It revealed that a massive granite plug filled up the zone and that its role was a vertical aquifer. We found fractured aquifers along the alternated boundary between the gneiss and the granitoids and seven well sites on triple junctions of fractures within the area-H. Areas C and GO consist of the Proterozoic basement. Two areas have too small surface to investigate new well placement. However, the junction point of three fractures of area-C provided an aquifer at the highest mountain slope and two well sites of 55GPM and 70GPM. Area-GO is located on the west limb of NS synclinal fold. The fold caused flexural brittle fault of N20E. Combination with fold and fault provided three wells. Area-S is composed of Jurassic granite with a lot of pegmatite or quartz veins and acidic dikes. Those fracture zones filled by dikes or veins were barren of groundwater. It revealed that triple junction of fractures, geologic boundary, dike swarm and shear fracture by fold and fault were good indicators for groundwater reservoir. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Choi, Sung-Ja AU - Chwae, Ueechan AU - Pak, Chun-Pom AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 571 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 35 IS - 6 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - fractured materials KW - three-dimensional models KW - site exploration KW - igneous rocks KW - granites KW - data processing KW - mapping KW - IKONOS KW - ground water KW - fractures KW - Landsat KW - plutonic rocks KW - folds KW - digital simulation KW - water wells KW - faults KW - remote sensing KW - 16:Structural geology KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51783885?accountid=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=Some+indicators+for+groundwater+reservoir+by+digital+fracture+mapping&rft.au=Choi%2C+Sung-Ja%3BChwae%2C+Ueechan%3BPak%2C+Chun-Pom%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Choi&rft.aufirst=Sung-Ja&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=571&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, 2003 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - data processing; digital simulation; faults; folds; fractured materials; fractures; granites; ground water; igneous rocks; IKONOS; Landsat; mapping; plutonic rocks; remote sensing; site exploration; three-dimensional models; water wells ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Isotopic biogeochemistry of dissolved organic nitrogen; implications for understanding ecosystem- and global-scale change AN - 51777645; 2005-000534 AB - Oceanic nitrogen budgets remain a focal point in marine research due to recent changes in nitrogen supplies leading to ecosystem scale changes and concerns regarding nitrous oxide fluxes. Excluding dinitrogen, dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) is often the largest pool of fixed nitrogen in marine system but is isotopically the most difficult to measure. We used a dialysis technique (100 Da MW cutoff) to characterize the nitrogen isotope value of DON from samples taken at Station ALOHA (22 degrees 45'N, 158 degrees W) and EPREX-2 (16 degrees N, 150 degrees W) within the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre in October 1998, January 1999 and May 2000. DON concentrations are 4-7 mM in surface waters and decrease to ca. 2 mM at 800 m. This decrease is associated with an increase in 15N and is consistent with microbial assimilation and degradation of DON with depth. Samples collected in summer have lower isotope values (1.6-11 o/oo) than those collected in winter (8.3-14 o/oo). We discuss these trends in terms of seasonal changes in N-fixation and the potential for DON to be injected into deeper waters where it could provide a substrate for nitrification and subsequent N2O production. We suggest that the understanding of DON cycling has important implications for understanding ecosystem and global scale changes in marine environments. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Gedeon, Michelle L AU - Ostrom, Peggy H AU - Ostrom, Nathaniel E AU - Karl, David M AU - Gandhi, Hasand AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 439 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 35 IS - 6 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - sea water KW - sediment transport KW - isotopes KW - biochemistry KW - global change KW - ecosystems KW - hydrochemistry KW - nitrogen KW - organic compounds KW - sampling KW - North Pacific KW - dissolved materials KW - marine environment KW - Pacific Ocean KW - sediments KW - ecology KW - chemical composition KW - geochemistry KW - 02D:Isotope geochemistry KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51777645?accountid=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=Isotopic+biogeochemistry+of+dissolved+organic+nitrogen%3B+implications+for+understanding+ecosystem-+and+global-scale+change&rft.au=Gedeon%2C+Michelle+L%3BOstrom%2C+Peggy+H%3BOstrom%2C+Nathaniel+E%3BKarl%2C+David+M%3BGandhi%2C+Hasand%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Gedeon&rft.aufirst=Michelle&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=439&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, 2003 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 - 2005-01-01 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - biochemistry; chemical composition; dissolved materials; ecology; ecosystems; geochemistry; global change; hydrochemistry; isotopes; marine environment; nitrogen; North Pacific; organic compounds; Pacific Ocean; sampling; sea water; sediment transport; sediments ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Equilibrium ranges in surf zone wave spectra AN - 51768021; 2005-004234 JF - Journal of Geophysical Research AU - Smith, Jane McKee AU - Vincent, Charles L Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 11 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 108 IS - C11 SN - 0148-0227, 0148-0227 KW - United States KW - Northwest Atlantic KW - experimental studies KW - breaking waves KW - surf zones KW - Duck North Carolina KW - Dare County North Carolina KW - equilibrium KW - measurement KW - laboratory studies KW - ocean waves KW - North Carolina KW - North Atlantic KW - winds KW - energy KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - 07:Oceanography UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51768021?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Geophysical+Research&rft.atitle=Equilibrium+ranges+in+surf+zone+wave+spectra&rft.au=Smith%2C+Jane+McKee%3BVincent%2C+Charles+L&rft.aulast=Smith&rft.aufirst=Jane&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=C11&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Geophysical+Research&rft.issn=01480227&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2003JC001930 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/jgr/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 28 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Ocean; breaking waves; Dare County North Carolina; Duck North Carolina; energy; equilibrium; experimental studies; laboratory studies; measurement; North Atlantic; North Carolina; Northwest Atlantic; ocean waves; surf zones; United States; winds DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001930 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modelling the density-driven discharge of sandstone blocks AN - 51758375; 2005-009921 JF - Transport in Porous Media AU - Kaiser, Jan-Christian AU - Diersch, H J G AU - Kahnt, R AU - Metschies, T Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 215 EP - 233 PB - Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht VL - 53 IS - 2 SN - 0169-3913, 0169-3913 KW - mines KW - numerical models KW - three-dimensional models KW - pollutants KW - confined aquifers KW - clogging KW - sandstone KW - prediction KW - pollution KW - simulation KW - two-dimensional models KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - sedimentary rocks KW - transport KW - saturation KW - discharge KW - mobility KW - clastic rocks KW - permeability KW - abandoned mines KW - 21:Hydrogeology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51758375?accountid=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=Transport+in+Porous+Media&rft.atitle=Modelling+the+density-driven+discharge+of+sandstone+blocks&rft.au=Kaiser%2C+Jan-Christian%3BDiersch%2C+H+J+G%3BKahnt%2C+R%3BMetschies%2C+T&rft.aulast=Kaiser&rft.aufirst=Jan-Christian&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=215&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transport+in+Porous+Media&rft.issn=01693913&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://springerlink.metapress.com/(l4tqdq55jga2hgb0achos1qm)/app/home/journal.asp?referrer=parent&backto=linkingpublicationresults,1:100342,1 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 15 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - abandoned mines; aquifers; clastic rocks; clogging; confined aquifers; discharge; ground water; mines; mobility; numerical models; permeability; pollutants; pollution; prediction; sandstone; saturation; sedimentary rocks; simulation; three-dimensional models; transport; two-dimensional models ER - TY - JOUR T1 - High-resolution SH-wave seismic reflection investigations near a coal mine-related roadway collapse feature AN - 50290857; 2004-031294 AB - We acquired crossline-crossline (SH-SH) shear-wave reflection data along a heavily trafficked section of Interstate highway 70 in eastern Ohio where the roadway had collapsed into underground coal-mine workings. We acquired these data to determine whether subsurface subsidence processes had continued at the collapse location after remediation, and to identify additional areas of potential collapse along this section of the roadway. A reflection correlating to the overburden and bedrock interface (above the mine workings) was consistently identified in raw field records, and our data processing and imaging targeted this high impedance contrast. Data quality was high enough to permit resolution of vertical offsets of 3-4 ft (0.91-1.2 m) and horizontal disruptions of about 20 ft (6.1 m) in the otherwise continuous bedrock horizon at two locations close to the previous collapse, suggesting a relatively high risk for future roadway failure in these areas. SH-wave data interpretations were supported by exploratory drilling results which confirmed that bedrock had subsided into underlying coal-mine workings at these two locations. Our results show that high-resolution SH-wave seismic reflection surveys can be effective for diagnosing mine-induced subsidence potential beneath heavily traveled roadways. JF - Journal of Applied Geophysics AU - Guy, Erich D AU - Nolen-Hoeksema, Richard C AU - Daniels, Jeffrey J AU - Lefchik, Thomas Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 51 EP - 70 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 54 IS - 1-2 SN - 0926-9851, 0926-9851 KW - United States KW - mining KW - imagery KW - seismic stratigraphy KW - geophysical surveys KW - geologic hazards KW - underground mining KW - site exploration KW - data acquisition KW - data processing KW - elastic waves KW - land subsidence KW - SH-waves KW - Ohio KW - impedance KW - bedrock KW - mines KW - high-resolution methods KW - body waves KW - geophysical methods KW - coal mines KW - reflection methods KW - seismic methods KW - Guernsey County Ohio KW - surveys KW - seismic waves KW - S-waves KW - roads KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50290857?accountid=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+Applied+Geophysics&rft.atitle=High-resolution+SH-wave+seismic+reflection+investigations+near+a+coal+mine-related+roadway+collapse+feature&rft.au=Guy%2C+Erich+D%3BNolen-Hoeksema%2C+Richard+C%3BDaniels%2C+Jeffrey+J%3BLefchik%2C+Thomas&rft.aulast=Guy&rft.aufirst=Erich&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=51&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Applied+Geophysics&rft.issn=09269851&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0926-9851%2803%2900055-7 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09269851 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 19 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GEOXAV N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bedrock; body waves; coal mines; data acquisition; data processing; elastic waves; geologic hazards; geophysical methods; geophysical surveys; Guernsey County Ohio; high-resolution methods; imagery; impedance; land subsidence; mines; mining; Ohio; reflection methods; roads; S-waves; seismic methods; seismic stratigraphy; seismic waves; SH-waves; site exploration; surveys; underground mining; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-9851(03)00055-7 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Fate of nonindigenous, endospore-forming bacteria in soils; strategies for laboratory and field investigations AN - 50113933; 2005-015450 AB - Persistence of nonindigenous microorganisms released onto soils or into natural environments can have a significant impact on Department of Defense (DOD) operations. An understanding of competition among various microbial communities is necessary to accurately predict the types of microorganisms that will flourish as well as those that will wane under differing environmental scenarios. In the past, soil microbiology was altered with brute-force techniques such as the saturation of a soil with a decontamination agent. An approach that is more feasible for large areas is to alter soil conditions to promote the desired microbial status or to effectively predict their fate in field conditions. Ultimately, the ability to accurately predict the occurrence of a dominant microbial community will be useful both for predicting the fate of pathogens in the environment and for fostering success in the bioremediation of soils and sediments. Bacillus globigii (BG) was selected to investigate the persistence and fate of nonindigenous bacteria released onto soils. We were able to differentiate BG from indigenous bacteria by combining culturing techniques with lipid-based validation. Enrichment on agar plates produced bright orange BG colonies that were clearly distinct from native microorganisms. These data suggest that there is either an initial loss in viability or an inability to recover 10-15% of the BG soon after inoculation onto the soil. JF - ERDC/CRREL Technical Report AU - Reynolds, Charles M AU - Foley, Karen L AU - Ringelberg, David B AU - Perry, Lawrence B Y1 - 2003/11// PY - 2003 DA - November 2003 SP - 38 PB - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Hanover, NH KW - United States KW - soils KW - laboratory studies KW - experimental studies KW - biochemistry KW - physicochemical properties KW - bacteria KW - turbidity KW - Alaska KW - microorganisms KW - field studies KW - 25:Soils UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50113933?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=Reynolds%2C+Charles+M%3BFoley%2C+Karen+L%3BRingelberg%2C+David+B%3BPerry%2C+Lawrence+B&rft.aulast=Reynolds&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Fate+of+nonindigenous%2C+endospore-forming+bacteria+in+soils%3B+strategies+for+laboratory+and+field+investigations&rft.title=Fate+of+nonindigenous%2C+endospore-forming+bacteria+in+soils%3B+strategies+for+laboratory+and+field+investigations&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2005-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 47 N1 - PubXState - NH N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - SuppNotes - Includes 3 appendices; accessed on Feb. 10, 2005 N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-18 N1 - CODEN - #05435 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Alaska; bacteria; biochemistry; experimental studies; field studies; laboratory studies; microorganisms; physicochemical properties; soils; turbidity; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, DAWSON, FORSYTH, LUMPKIN, HALL, AND GWINNETT COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, DAWSON, FORSYTH, LUMPKIN, HALL, AND GWINNETT COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 36384460; 10502-030524_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of operation and maintenance activities at Lake Lanier, located in Dawson, Forsyth, Lumpkin, Hall, and Gwinnett counties, Georgia is proposed. The 47,182-acre lake extends upstream from the Buford Dam, located at river mile 348.3 on the Chattahoochee River. At full conservation pool, the lake covers 39,038 acres and has a shoreline of 693 miles, providing for storage of 1.96 million acre-feet of water. During droughts, the lake sometimes covers only 22,442 acres, providing for storage of 867,000 acre-feet of water while still releasing enough water to maintain minimum downstream river flow. The lake extends up the Chattahoochee and Chestatee rivers. Development along the shoreline of the lake and increased recreational visits have resulted in stress to environmental resources, degradation of water quality in the lake and downstream of the lake, erosion and sedimentation within the project area, and diminishment of area aesthetics. The plan would address recreation facilities and resources, natural resources, and shoreline management as well as implementing specific improvements in the operation and maintenance programs to better manage the project on a sustainable basis. These activities would be performed within the context of operations to satisfy the flood control, hydropower generation, and navigation support purposes of the Buford Dam project. The proposed action reflects two levels of activity: 1) the minimal measures necessary for operation and maintenance of the lake to meet current federal standards and 2) proposed program improvements, which include a large array of actions designed to enhance the environmental quality of the project and to provide for the long-term use and environmental sustainability of project resources. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The proposed modifications would address fish and wildlife habitat, shoreline management, island management, nonnative plant control, fire management, water quality management, endangered species conservation, wetlands, forest management, pollution abatement, recreational resources and facilities, and other land uses. The reduction of the number of docks along the lake shoreline would be an essential aspect of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to improving the environmental condition of the lake and surrounding and downstream areas, the modified operation and maintenance plan would allow the lake to satisfy water-related recreational demands and water supply needs in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The reduction of the number of docks would reduce recreational access to the lake, decreasing the availability of lake resources to fishermen and other recreationists. The permitting of 2,022 boat docks under the proposed action would degrade the visual aesthetics of the shoreline, but the No Action Alternative would permit 16,734 docks. Conflicts between boaters, navigation difficulties associated with additional docks, and boating accidents would all be expected to increase in the future. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1946 PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-011D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030524, 1,021 pages and maps, November 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Storage KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife KW - Chattahoochee River KW - Chestatee River KW - Georgia KW - Lake Sidney Lanier KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+LAKE+SIDNEY+LANIER%2C+DAWSON%2C+FORSYTH%2C+LUMPKIN%2C+HALL%2C+AND+GWINNETT+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=OPERATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+LAKE+SIDNEY+LANIER%2C+DAWSON%2C+FORSYTH%2C+LUMPKIN%2C+HALL%2C+AND+GWINNETT+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, DAWSON, FORSYTH, LUMPKIN, HALL, AND GWINNETT COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, DAWSON, FORSYTH, LUMPKIN, HALL, AND GWINNETT COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 36378051; 10502-030524_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of operation and maintenance activities at Lake Lanier, located in Dawson, Forsyth, Lumpkin, Hall, and Gwinnett counties, Georgia is proposed. The 47,182-acre lake extends upstream from the Buford Dam, located at river mile 348.3 on the Chattahoochee River. At full conservation pool, the lake covers 39,038 acres and has a shoreline of 693 miles, providing for storage of 1.96 million acre-feet of water. During droughts, the lake sometimes covers only 22,442 acres, providing for storage of 867,000 acre-feet of water while still releasing enough water to maintain minimum downstream river flow. The lake extends up the Chattahoochee and Chestatee rivers. Development along the shoreline of the lake and increased recreational visits have resulted in stress to environmental resources, degradation of water quality in the lake and downstream of the lake, erosion and sedimentation within the project area, and diminishment of area aesthetics. The plan would address recreation facilities and resources, natural resources, and shoreline management as well as implementing specific improvements in the operation and maintenance programs to better manage the project on a sustainable basis. These activities would be performed within the context of operations to satisfy the flood control, hydropower generation, and navigation support purposes of the Buford Dam project. The proposed action reflects two levels of activity: 1) the minimal measures necessary for operation and maintenance of the lake to meet current federal standards and 2) proposed program improvements, which include a large array of actions designed to enhance the environmental quality of the project and to provide for the long-term use and environmental sustainability of project resources. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The proposed modifications would address fish and wildlife habitat, shoreline management, island management, nonnative plant control, fire management, water quality management, endangered species conservation, wetlands, forest management, pollution abatement, recreational resources and facilities, and other land uses. The reduction of the number of docks along the lake shoreline would be an essential aspect of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to improving the environmental condition of the lake and surrounding and downstream areas, the modified operation and maintenance plan would allow the lake to satisfy water-related recreational demands and water supply needs in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The reduction of the number of docks would reduce recreational access to the lake, decreasing the availability of lake resources to fishermen and other recreationists. The permitting of 2,022 boat docks under the proposed action would degrade the visual aesthetics of the shoreline, but the No Action Alternative would permit 16,734 docks. Conflicts between boaters, navigation difficulties associated with additional docks, and boating accidents would all be expected to increase in the future. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1946 PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-011D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030524, 1,021 pages and maps, November 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Storage KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife KW - Chattahoochee River KW - Chestatee River KW - Georgia KW - Lake Sidney Lanier KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36378051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+LAKE+SIDNEY+LANIER%2C+DAWSON%2C+FORSYTH%2C+LUMPKIN%2C+HALL%2C+AND+GWINNETT+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=OPERATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+LAKE+SIDNEY+LANIER%2C+DAWSON%2C+FORSYTH%2C+LUMPKIN%2C+HALL%2C+AND+GWINNETT+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, DAWSON, FORSYTH, LUMPKIN, HALL, AND GWINNETT COUNTIES, GEORGIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF LAKE SIDNEY LANIER, DAWSON, FORSYTH, LUMPKIN, HALL, AND GWINNETT COUNTIES, GEORGIA. AN - 36377964; 10502-030524_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of operation and maintenance activities at Lake Lanier, located in Dawson, Forsyth, Lumpkin, Hall, and Gwinnett counties, Georgia is proposed. The 47,182-acre lake extends upstream from the Buford Dam, located at river mile 348.3 on the Chattahoochee River. At full conservation pool, the lake covers 39,038 acres and has a shoreline of 693 miles, providing for storage of 1.96 million acre-feet of water. During droughts, the lake sometimes covers only 22,442 acres, providing for storage of 867,000 acre-feet of water while still releasing enough water to maintain minimum downstream river flow. The lake extends up the Chattahoochee and Chestatee rivers. Development along the shoreline of the lake and increased recreational visits have resulted in stress to environmental resources, degradation of water quality in the lake and downstream of the lake, erosion and sedimentation within the project area, and diminishment of area aesthetics. The plan would address recreation facilities and resources, natural resources, and shoreline management as well as implementing specific improvements in the operation and maintenance programs to better manage the project on a sustainable basis. These activities would be performed within the context of operations to satisfy the flood control, hydropower generation, and navigation support purposes of the Buford Dam project. The proposed action reflects two levels of activity: 1) the minimal measures necessary for operation and maintenance of the lake to meet current federal standards and 2) proposed program improvements, which include a large array of actions designed to enhance the environmental quality of the project and to provide for the long-term use and environmental sustainability of project resources. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. The proposed modifications would address fish and wildlife habitat, shoreline management, island management, nonnative plant control, fire management, water quality management, endangered species conservation, wetlands, forest management, pollution abatement, recreational resources and facilities, and other land uses. The reduction of the number of docks along the lake shoreline would be an essential aspect of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to improving the environmental condition of the lake and surrounding and downstream areas, the modified operation and maintenance plan would allow the lake to satisfy water-related recreational demands and water supply needs in the area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The reduction of the number of docks would reduce recreational access to the lake, decreasing the availability of lake resources to fishermen and other recreationists. The permitting of 2,022 boat docks under the proposed action would degrade the visual aesthetics of the shoreline, but the No Action Alternative would permit 16,734 docks. Conflicts between boaters, navigation difficulties associated with additional docks, and boating accidents would all be expected to increase in the future. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1946 PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-011D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030524, 1,021 pages and maps, November 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Shores KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Storage KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife KW - Chattahoochee River KW - Chestatee River KW - Georgia KW - Lake Sidney Lanier KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36377964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-11-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OPERATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+LAKE+SIDNEY+LANIER%2C+DAWSON%2C+FORSYTH%2C+LUMPKIN%2C+HALL%2C+AND+GWINNETT+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=OPERATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+LAKE+SIDNEY+LANIER%2C+DAWSON%2C+FORSYTH%2C+LUMPKIN%2C+HALL%2C+AND+GWINNETT+COUNTIES%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 78 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36355551; 10479-030500_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 78 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Jack&rft.date=2013-04-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=153&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Medical+and+Biological+Frontiers&rft.issn=10813829&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 77 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36355262; 10479-030500_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 77 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 1 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36355081; 10479-030500_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 34 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36355039; 10479-030500_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36355039?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 85 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36354730; 10479-030500_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 85 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 82 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36354644; 10479-030500_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 82 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 13 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36354623; 10479-030500_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 44 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36354450; 10479-030500_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 44 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 45 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36354428; 10479-030500_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 45 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 39 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36354220; 10479-030500_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 39 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 30 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36354025; 10479-030500_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 46 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36354014; 10479-030500_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 46 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36354014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 25 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353814; 10479-030500_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 31 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353738; 10479-030500_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 61 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353722; 10479-030500_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 61 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 96 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353696; 10479-030500_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 96 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 9 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353649; 10479-030500_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 37 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353548; 10479-030500_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 37 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 95 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353511; 10479-030500_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 95 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 8 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353438; 10479-030500_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 36 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353313; 10479-030500_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 36 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 38 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353271; 10479-030500_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 38 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 62 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353254; 10479-030500_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 62 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 97 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353230; 10479-030500_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 97 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 5 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353116; 10479-030500_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 71 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353079; 10479-030500_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 71 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 58 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36353047; 10479-030500_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 58 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 3 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352945; 10479-030500_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 69 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352886; 10479-030500_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 69 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 76 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352853; 10479-030500_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 76 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 4 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352830; 10479-030500_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352830?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 98 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352787; 10479-030500_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 98 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 92 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352697; 10479-030500_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 92 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 66 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352664; 10479-030500_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 66 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 43 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352627; 10479-030500_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 43 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 93 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352623; 10479-030500_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 93 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 22 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352617; 10479-030500_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 94 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352573; 10479-030500_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 94 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 2 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352569; 10479-030500_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 63 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352517; 10479-030500_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 63 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 70 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352406; 10479-030500_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 70 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352406?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 91 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352400; 10479-030500_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 91 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 18 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352395; 10479-030500_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 24 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352341; 10479-030500_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352341?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 33 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352340; 10479-030500_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 59 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352264; 10479-030500_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 59 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 60 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352217; 10479-030500_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 60 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 67 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352202; 10479-030500_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 67 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 68 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352197; 10479-030500_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 68 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 14 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352145; 10479-030500_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 79 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352120; 10479-030500_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 79 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 80 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352060; 10479-030500_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 80 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 48 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36352003; 10479-030500_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 48 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352003?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 53 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351954; 10479-030500_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 53 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 65 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351945; 10479-030500_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 65 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 75 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351937; 10479-030500_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 75 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 7 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351884; 10479-030500_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351884?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 72 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351864; 10479-030500_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 72 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 28 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351770; 10479-030500_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 51 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351768; 10479-030500_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 51 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351768?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 56 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351753; 10479-030500_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 56 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 50 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351745; 10479-030500_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 50 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 52 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351697; 10479-030500_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 52 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 87 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351640; 10479-030500_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 87 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351640?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 89 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351619; 10479-030500_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 89 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 73 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351574; 10479-030500_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 73 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 29 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351563; 10479-030500_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 49 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351483; 10479-030500_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 49 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 35 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351416; 10479-030500_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 35 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 57 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351395; 10479-030500_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 57 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 16 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351364; 10479-030500_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 27 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351327; 10479-030500_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 11 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351278; 10479-030500_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 21 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351264; 10479-030500_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 74 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351216; 10479-030500_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 74 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 81 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351191; 10479-030500_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 81 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 20 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351062; 10479-030500_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 42 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36351012; 10479-030500_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 42 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 12 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36350974; 10479-030500_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 6 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36350842; 10479-030500_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 47 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36350795; 10479-030500_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 47 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 40 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36350793; 10479-030500_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 40 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350793?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 55 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36350572; 10479-030500_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 55 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 10 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36350475; 10479-030500_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350475?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 26 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36350388; 10479-030500_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. [Part 23 of 98] T2 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 36350152; 10479-030500_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON MAGLEV PROJECT BETWEEN UNION STATION IN WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE CAMDEN YARDS AREA OF DOWNTOWN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND. AN - 15226090; 10479 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a magnetic levitation (Maglev) railway between Union Station in the District of Columbia and Camden Yards in Baltimore, Maryland are proposed. The project would be a key element of the fourth phase of a five-phase project development and selection process under the Magnet Levitation Transportation Technology Deployment Program, referred to as the Maglev Deployment Program (MDP). While most trains in the United States run on wheels and tracks and seldom sustain speeds of 80 miles per hour (mph) or more, a Maglev train is operated by non-contact electromagnetic systems that lift, guide, and propel the vehicle forward on a special guideway at speeds up to 310 mph. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternative, known as the Amtrak Parallel Alternative, would leave Union Station on an alignment west of and parallel to the Amtrak railroad towards Cheverly and continue in a northeasterly path through open areas along the Patuxent Research Refuge and Fort George Meade. Just north of Fort Meade along the railroad tracks, south of the Odenton MARC train station, the Maglev would cross over the Amtrak railroad, continuing parallel to Amtrak on the east side to a point east of Aviation Boulevard, where it would enter a tunnel beneath Baltimore- Washington International (BWI) Airport. Two alternative alignments are available for the tunnel approaching the two potential BWI station locations from the south and two alternatives are available for the section that would extend from the potential station locations to the median of Maryland Route (MD) 295. The alignment would then proceed up the highway median to a crossing of the northbound lanes in the Baltimore Highlands are of Baltimore County. Paralleling MD 295, the alignment would swing slightly further to the east of the Westport area of Baltimore City before entering a tunnel in the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River and approaching the Downtown Baltimore Station. The Maglev system would require an extensive infrastructure to service the projected ridership. The infrastructure would include 40 miles of guideway, 12 bridges, three twin tunnels, three passenger stations, three electrical substations, a maintenance facility, and six track switches. Cost of construction of the system is estimated at $3.74 billion. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $53 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and efficiency of Maglev technology, the proposed action would help to meet transportation, economic, and environmental goals in the Baltimore-Washington corridor. Congestion within the corridor and in parallel corridors would decline somewhat, and the need for additional highway construction would be reduced. Air pollutant levels and consumption of automobile fuels would decline significantly. The project would support the BWI Airport as a key economic engine within the state of Maryland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way development requirements would affect 498.6 to 509.1 acres of watershed land, 10.5 acres of wetlands and waters of the US, 6.84 acres of wetlands of special state concern, 259 acres forest and woodland, habitat for nine sensitive species, 5.1 to 31.7 acres of floodplain, and 326 to 331 residences and businesses. Critical coastal zone areas would be traversed in three locations. Historically and archaeologically significant sites would be affected, and Maglev structures would mar visual aesthetics along the corridor. Four park properties, encompassing 24.77 acres, would be displaced. Noise levels that would exceed federal standards would be contained via noise barriers. Real estate acquisitions would result in disproportionate impacts to minorities and low-income populations in two out of the five jurisdictions affected, Vibration impacts would affect such populations throughout the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the general MAGLEV development program, see 00-0427D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 01-0316F, Volume 25, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030500, Draft EIS--781 pages and maps, Engineering Plans and Profile--86 oversize pages, October 29, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Coastal Zones KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Control KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - Visual Resources KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Project Authorization KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15226090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON+MAGLEV+PROJECT+BETWEEN+UNION+STATION+IN+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA+AND+THE+CAMDEN+YARDS+AREA+OF+DOWNTOWN+BALTIMORE%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI. AN - 36353197; 10457-030477_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a hotel and casino complex on the north shore of the Black Bay of Biloxi in the city of D'Iberville, Harrison, County, Mississippi are proposed. The facility would serve visitors to the Gulf Coast in that area. The pertinent state legislation has lead to the development of numerous casinos in southern Mississippi; the act requires gaming facilities to be located on navigable waters. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to Interstate 110. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to the site setting, including climate and land use; infrastructure; transportation requirements; air and water quality; geology and soils; hazardous materials and wastes; historical and archaeologic resources; and the socioeconomic environment. Five categories of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives include the proposed action, two site alternatives, two layout alternatives, and three traffic control alternatives. The proposed action would construct and operate the facilities on a 9.6-acre site; the developers currently own or have the option to purchase the parcels comprising the proposed site. Access roads would be improved. Functional value of the 12-acre saltmarsh adjacent to the site would improve significantly after marsh restoration activities take place. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino and hotel complex would result in local and regional socioeconomic benefits, including increased employment, tax revenues, community cohesion, community services, and property values. The proposed action would not have a significant impact on the resources in the area of influence. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action 9.26 acres of upland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed by site development activities. Minimal adverse impacts would affect the site area, place some stress on infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure, and result in minimal impacts to ecological resources. Site development would require 1,500 cubic yards of dredging. Casino structures to be placed over water in the Back Bay would affect 2.24 acres for placement of a casino barge and 0.98 acre for parking developments. 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 03-0402D, Volume 27, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030477, 1,378 pages and maps, October 15, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Barges KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi 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/36353197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-5 TOUTLE PARK ROAD TO MAYTOWN; COWLITZ, LEWIS, AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - I-5 TOUTLE PARK ROAD TO MAYTOWN; COWLITZ, LEWIS, AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 36350348; 10453-030473_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 42.5-mile section of Interstate 5 (I-5) from the Toutle Park Road Interchange (Exit 52) in northern Cowlitz County, through Lewis County, to the Maytown Interchange (Exit 95) in the southern part of Thurston County, located in southwestern Washington, is proposed. Portions of the corridor pass through the cities of Chehalis and Centralia. I-5 is the major north-south transportation corridor for intercity travel in western Washington. Roughly half of the project corridor is jointly designated with SR 12 as a major east-west route through southern Washington, and the additional traffic from SR 12 adds to the capacity problems along the corridor. A mainline capacity analysis indicated that the project corridor would be operating at Level of Service F by the year 2020. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, which would involve short-term maintenance activities, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would widen the existing four-lane segments of I-5 to a six-lane divided highway and would make design modifications and improvements at three interchanges (SR 12 East, Cowlitz River, and SR 12 West). Widening the highway would require the replacement or widening of 11 bridges within the project area. At several locations the roadway would be realigned to improve visibility at horizontal curves and improve sight distance over hills. A section of highway in Centralia would be raised six feet to meet flood clearance standards. Drainage improvements would be made at various locations including stormwater detention and water treatment facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would increase the service level of I-5, enhance safety, reduce congestion, and accommodate projected population and traffic increases. Access to parks and recreational facilities would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross nine miles of floodplain. The widened highway could impede the flows of crossing streams and contribute to flooding risk. Up to 128 acres of wetlands would be filled, and 118 acres of prime farmland converted to highway use. Rights-of-way requirements would displace up to 27 residential units and six businesses. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 97-0051D, Volume 21, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030473, 1,012 pages, October 10, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-96-2-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Floodplains KW - Flood Hazards KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Recreation Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-5+TOUTLE+PARK+ROAD+TO+MAYTOWN%3B+COWLITZ%2C+LEWIS%2C+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=I-5+TOUTLE+PARK+ROAD+TO+MAYTOWN%3B+COWLITZ%2C+LEWIS%2C+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-5 TOUTLE PARK ROAD TO MAYTOWN; COWLITZ, LEWIS, AND THURSTON COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 15225220; 10453 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 42.5-mile section of Interstate 5 (I-5) from the Toutle Park Road Interchange (Exit 52) in northern Cowlitz County, through Lewis County, to the Maytown Interchange (Exit 95) in the southern part of Thurston County, located in southwestern Washington, is proposed. Portions of the corridor pass through the cities of Chehalis and Centralia. I-5 is the major north-south transportation corridor for intercity travel in western Washington. Roughly half of the project corridor is jointly designated with SR 12 as a major east-west route through southern Washington, and the additional traffic from SR 12 adds to the capacity problems along the corridor. A mainline capacity analysis indicated that the project corridor would be operating at Level of Service F by the year 2020. Two alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, which would involve short-term maintenance activities, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would widen the existing four-lane segments of I-5 to a six-lane divided highway and would make design modifications and improvements at three interchanges (SR 12 East, Cowlitz River, and SR 12 West). Widening the highway would require the replacement or widening of 11 bridges within the project area. At several locations the roadway would be realigned to improve visibility at horizontal curves and improve sight distance over hills. A section of highway in Centralia would be raised six feet to meet flood clearance standards. Drainage improvements would be made at various locations including stormwater detention and water treatment facilities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvements would increase the service level of I-5, enhance safety, reduce congestion, and accommodate projected population and traffic increases. Access to parks and recreational facilities would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cross nine miles of floodplain. The widened highway could impede the flows of crossing streams and contribute to flooding risk. Up to 128 acres of wetlands would be filled, and 118 acres of prime farmland converted to highway use. Rights-of-way requirements would displace up to 27 residential units and six businesses. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 97-0051D, Volume 21, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030473, 1,012 pages, October 10, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-96-2-F KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Drainage KW - Floodplains KW - Flood Hazards KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Recreation Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15225220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-10-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-5+TOUTLE+PARK+ROAD+TO+MAYTOWN%3B+COWLITZ%2C+LEWIS%2C+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=I-5+TOUTLE+PARK+ROAD+TO+MAYTOWN%3B+COWLITZ%2C+LEWIS%2C+AND+THURSTON+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 10, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 83 (COUNTY NN TO WIS 16), WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 83 (COUNTY NN TO WIS 16), WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 36353380; 10451-030471_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 17 miles of Wisconsin Route 83 (WIS 83) from County Route NN at Mukwonago to WIS 16 at Hartland in central Waukesha County, Wisconsin is proposed. WIS 83 is an important north-south arterial highway serving local and regional traffic in the city of Delafield; the towns of Mukwonago, Genesee, Delafield, and Merton; the villages of Mukwonago, North Prairie, Wales, Hartland, and Chehequa; and unincorporated Genesee Depot. The corridor is transitioning to urban/suburban development and traffic is expected to increase by 60 percent or more by 2026. Safety concerns include restricted sight distances at several points, limited passing opportunities, inadequate safety clear zones, and numerous access points that contribute to poor traffic operations. Nearly the entirety of WIS 83 is characterized by crash rates that exceed the statewide average for similar highways. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, build alternatives were developed for seven sections along the study corridor. The preferred alternative would provide for a two- and/or four-lane facility; the preferred alignment will be identified in the final EIS. Interchange and bridge construction/reconstruction would be provided as appropriate. Depending on the design and alignment chosen, costs of the project range from $59.3 million to $68.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would provide additional transportation capacity within the corridor, supporting anticipated development and regional and county transportation system plans. Safety within the corridor would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way requirements could result in the displacement of residences and businesses, severance of privately owned parcels, loss of wetlands, and damage or displacement of historic resource sites. Up to three new stream crossings could be required. 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: 030471, 365 pages and maps, October 9, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-03-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin 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/36353380?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+83+%28COUNTY+NN+TO+WIS+16%29%2C+WAUKESHA+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+83+%28COUNTY+NN+TO+WIS+16%29%2C+WAUKESHA+COUNTY%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 - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36349598; 10450-030470_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris /Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. 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.), 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: 030470, Volumes I & II--707 pages and maps, Volume III--392 pages and maps, October 9, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+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: October 9, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36348847; 10450-030470_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris /Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. 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.), 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: 030470, Volumes I & II--707 pages and maps, Volume III--392 pages and maps, October 9, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+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: October 9, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND PARKWAY, STATE HIGHWAY 99 SEGMENT F-1, FROM US 290 TO SH 249, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 16354569; 10450 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of 12.13 miles of highway as a portion of the Grand Parkway in the northwest quadrant of the third loop highway (State Highway (SH) 99) around the city of Houston in Harris County, Texas is proposed. Once completed, the 170-mile circumferential Grand Parkway would provide access to radial freeways and serve as a third loop around Houston. The conceptual design for this segment (Segment F-1) of the Grand Parkway would provide for a four-mainline, at-grade, controlled access freeway, with a design speed of 70 miles per hour, within a 400-foot right-of-way. Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G are located approximately 25 to 30 miles to the northwest of the city. Together they will combine to provide a continuous 52-mile highway facility. The Segment F-1 study area is bounded by SH 249 on the northeast, US 290/SH 6 on the southwest, Farm-to-Market 1960 on the south, and the Harris /Montgomery County line on the northwest. Four build alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. The recommended alternative would provide for a combination of alignments investigated during the design study. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The freeway would provide improved access to the existing thoroughfare system, reduce area traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve area-wide mobility. Together with the other Grand Parkway segments in the northwest quadrant, the facility would provide access to Interstate 10 (I-10), US 290. SH 249, and I-45, and US 59. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of new rights-of-way would result in the displacement of one business and 11 residences, 587.7 acres of prime farmland, 163 acres of farmland of statewide and local importance, 3.1 acres of riparian forest, and nine acres of surface waterbodies. The freeway would traverse 71.5 acres within floodplain areas and 111.7 acres within floodways. One historic site could be affected, and the highway would traverse 509 acres of high-probability areas for archaeological resources. Traffic-generated noise levels could exceed federal standards in the vicinity of as many as 39 sensitive receptor sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in areas that are currently rural. 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.), 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: 030470, Volumes I & II--707 pages and maps, Volume III--392 pages and maps, October 9, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TX-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991, Funding KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GRAND+PARKWAY%2C+STATE+HIGHWAY+99+SEGMENT+F-1%2C+FROM+US+290+TO+SH+249%2C+HARRIS+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: October 9, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WISCONSIN STATE HIGHWAY 83 (COUNTY NN TO WIS 16), WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 16353657; 10451 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of approximately 17 miles of Wisconsin Route 83 (WIS 83) from County Route NN at Mukwonago to WIS 16 at Hartland in central Waukesha County, Wisconsin is proposed. WIS 83 is an important north-south arterial highway serving local and regional traffic in the city of Delafield; the towns of Mukwonago, Genesee, Delafield, and Merton; the villages of Mukwonago, North Prairie, Wales, Hartland, and Chehequa; and unincorporated Genesee Depot. The corridor is transitioning to urban/suburban development and traffic is expected to increase by 60 percent or more by 2026. Safety concerns include restricted sight distances at several points, limited passing opportunities, inadequate safety clear zones, and numerous access points that contribute to poor traffic operations. Nearly the entirety of WIS 83 is characterized by crash rates that exceed the statewide average for similar highways. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, build alternatives were developed for seven sections along the study corridor. The preferred alternative would provide for a two- and/or four-lane facility; the preferred alignment will be identified in the final EIS. Interchange and bridge construction/reconstruction would be provided as appropriate. Depending on the design and alignment chosen, costs of the project range from $59.3 million to $68.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would provide additional transportation capacity within the corridor, supporting anticipated development and regional and county transportation system plans. Safety within the corridor would improve significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New rights-of-way requirements could result in the displacement of residences and businesses, severance of privately owned parcels, loss of wetlands, and damage or displacement of historic resource sites. Up to three new stream crossings could be required. 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: 030471, 365 pages and maps, October 9, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-03-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wisconsin 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/16353657?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-10-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+83+%28COUNTY+NN+TO+WIS+16%29%2C+WAUKESHA+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=WISCONSIN+STATE+HIGHWAY+83+%28COUNTY+NN+TO+WIS+16%29%2C+WAUKESHA+COUNTY%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 - Draft. Preparation date: October 9, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST CLIFF DRIVE BLUFF PROTECTION AND PARKWAY PROJECT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - EAST CLIFF DRIVE BLUFF PROTECTION AND PARKWAY PROJECT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36353323; 10445-030465_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an erosion protection and parkway project within the East Cliff Drive Bluff area of Santa Cruz County, California is proposed. The area is located midway between the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco on the north shore of Monterey Bay. The coastal bluffs within the project area have been and continue to be susceptible to continuous and periodically severe erosion. The area is also at risk of a sudden failure from a large seismic event. The potential loss of East Cliff Drive has been a concern for many years and, in the 1990s, it became clear that continued failures would undermine the road, public access to the coast, and utility lines. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 1), the cliff face adjacent to East Cliff Drive would be fully armored with engineered bluff protection structures consisting of soil nail and shotcrete. Two independent actions would be implemented. The first action would involve a 1,100-linear-foot project extending from 33rd Avenue to 36th Avenue. The second action would involve a 300-foot project at the end of 41st Avenue (also known as "The Hook"). The project would also include pedestrian and multi-use path improvements, provision of a new restroom, improvement to parking facilities, installation of storm drainage facilities, and park site development. Existing concrete rubble and riprap used to protect the bluff area would be removed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the continued viability of East Cliff Drive and the associated utility lines. Access to the coast and provision of utility-related services would continue even in the event of seismic activity NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Armoring of the cliff face would mar the visual quality of the bluff and destroy some cavity habitat. Park and parking improvements and other recreational facility improvements would result in the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0361D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030465, Final EIS--401 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Appendices--671 pages, October 8, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Earthquakes KW - Erosion Control KW - Highways KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353323?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+CLIFF+DRIVE+BLUFF+PROTECTION+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+CLIFF+DRIVE+BLUFF+PROTECTION+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+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 - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST CLIFF DRIVE BLUFF PROTECTION AND PARKWAY PROJECT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - EAST CLIFF DRIVE BLUFF PROTECTION AND PARKWAY PROJECT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36350379; 10445-030465_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an erosion protection and parkway project within the East Cliff Drive Bluff area of Santa Cruz County, California is proposed. The area is located midway between the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco on the north shore of Monterey Bay. The coastal bluffs within the project area have been and continue to be susceptible to continuous and periodically severe erosion. The area is also at risk of a sudden failure from a large seismic event. The potential loss of East Cliff Drive has been a concern for many years and, in the 1990s, it became clear that continued failures would undermine the road, public access to the coast, and utility lines. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 1), the cliff face adjacent to East Cliff Drive would be fully armored with engineered bluff protection structures consisting of soil nail and shotcrete. Two independent actions would be implemented. The first action would involve a 1,100-linear-foot project extending from 33rd Avenue to 36th Avenue. The second action would involve a 300-foot project at the end of 41st Avenue (also known as "The Hook"). The project would also include pedestrian and multi-use path improvements, provision of a new restroom, improvement to parking facilities, installation of storm drainage facilities, and park site development. Existing concrete rubble and riprap used to protect the bluff area would be removed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the continued viability of East Cliff Drive and the associated utility lines. Access to the coast and provision of utility-related services would continue even in the event of seismic activity NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Armoring of the cliff face would mar the visual quality of the bluff and destroy some cavity habitat. Park and parking improvements and other recreational facility improvements would result in the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0361D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030465, Final EIS--401 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Appendices--671 pages, October 8, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Earthquakes KW - Erosion Control KW - Highways KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+CLIFF+DRIVE+BLUFF+PROTECTION+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+CLIFF+DRIVE+BLUFF+PROTECTION+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+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 - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST CLIFF DRIVE BLUFF PROTECTION AND PARKWAY PROJECT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16366245; 10445 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of an erosion protection and parkway project within the East Cliff Drive Bluff area of Santa Cruz County, California is proposed. The area is located midway between the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco on the north shore of Monterey Bay. The coastal bluffs within the project area have been and continue to be susceptible to continuous and periodically severe erosion. The area is also at risk of a sudden failure from a large seismic event. The potential loss of East Cliff Drive has been a concern for many years and, in the 1990s, it became clear that continued failures would undermine the road, public access to the coast, and utility lines. Four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative 1), the cliff face adjacent to East Cliff Drive would be fully armored with engineered bluff protection structures consisting of soil nail and shotcrete. Two independent actions would be implemented. The first action would involve a 1,100-linear-foot project extending from 33rd Avenue to 36th Avenue. The second action would involve a 300-foot project at the end of 41st Avenue (also known as "The Hook"). The project would also include pedestrian and multi-use path improvements, provision of a new restroom, improvement to parking facilities, installation of storm drainage facilities, and park site development. Existing concrete rubble and riprap used to protect the bluff area would be removed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would ensure the continued viability of East Cliff Drive and the associated utility lines. Access to the coast and provision of utility-related services would continue even in the event of seismic activity NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Armoring of the cliff face would mar the visual quality of the bluff and destroy some cavity habitat. Park and parking improvements and other recreational facility improvements would result in the destruction of vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (49 U.S.C. 303). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0361D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030465, Final EIS--401 pages and maps, Responses to Comments and Appendices--671 pages, October 8, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Coastal Zones KW - Earthquakes KW - Erosion Control KW - Highways KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - California KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16366245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+CLIFF+DRIVE+BLUFF+PROTECTION+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+CLIFF+DRIVE+BLUFF+PROTECTION+AND+PARKWAY+PROJECT%2C+SANTA+CRUZ+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 - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Remote sensing AN - 742896088; 2004-057268 JF - Remote sensing AU - Walsh, Michael J AU - Amidon, Lorin J AU - Bryant, Emily S AU - Bolus, Robert L AU - Tracy, Brian T Y1 - 2003/10// PY - 2003 DA - October 2003 VL - EM-1110-2-2907 KW - soils KW - civil engineering KW - land cover KW - surface water KW - vegetation KW - satellite methods KW - Landsat KW - military geology KW - hydrographs KW - snow KW - aerial photography KW - applications KW - bathymetry KW - land use KW - instruments KW - remote sensing KW - airborne methods KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/742896088?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=Walsh%2C+Michael+J%3BAmidon%2C+Lorin+J%3BBryant%2C+Emily+S%3BBolus%2C+Robert+L%3BTracy%2C+Brian+T&rft.aulast=Walsh&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2003-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Remote+sensing&rft.title=Remote+sensing&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Availability - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 12 tables N1 - SuppNotes - Includes 9 appendices N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - How to combine deterministic and probabilistic methods for assessing earthquake hazards AN - 51869840; 2004-024734 AB - Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) are incompatible methods. DSHA is based on geology and is attuned to physical reality in nature; PSHA is based on earthquake statistics and theory-guided numerical calculations. PSHA is less reliable than DSHA because PSHA is full of grave uncertainties that are created by the method itself; DSHA is more reliable because it deals principally with observed geological facts and is logical and transparent. DSHA and PSHA can be combined to advantage if one accepts that they are not equally valid. To combine them, one must recognize the weaknesses in PSHA and not use PSHA for design of critical structures. Only DSHA is suitable for that purpose. However, PSHA can be used for (1) preliminary evaluations, (2) for an operating basis earthquake (OBE), (3) for risk analysis when unrelated to design decisions for a critical project, and (4) for design of non-critical construction. Probabilistic methods that should never be used are (1) multiple expert opinion, (2) logic trees, and (3) deaggregation. No unrepentant seismic probabilist will agree to this diminishment of PSHA. Consequently, DSHA and PSHA will remain irreconcilable. The solution is for policymakers in regulatory agencies and owners of major engineering projects to determine which of the methods to use or in what combination. They need to (1) engage open-minded advisors, (2) ask hard questions, and (3) choose wisely. Meanwhile, Krinitzsky [Eng. Geol. 65 (2002) 1] provides procedures to obtain earthquake ground motions for engineering design that combine DSHA and PSHA according to the above criteria. JF - Engineering Geology AU - Krinitzsky, Ellis L Y1 - 2003/10// PY - 2003 DA - October 2003 SP - 157 EP - 163 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 70 IS - 1-2 SN - 0013-7952, 0013-7952 KW - methods KW - geologic hazards KW - seismic risk KW - statistical analysis KW - ground motion KW - risk assessment KW - probability KW - earthquakes KW - construction KW - uncertainty KW - design KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51869840?accountid=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=Engineering+Geology&rft.atitle=How+to+combine+deterministic+and+probabilistic+methods+for+assessing+earthquake+hazards&rft.au=Krinitzsky%2C+Ellis+L&rft.aulast=Krinitzsky&rft.aufirst=Ellis&rft.date=2003-10-01&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=1-2&rft.spage=157&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Engineering+Geology&rft.issn=00137952&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0013-7952%2802%2900269-7 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00137952 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 - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 9 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EGGOAO N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - construction; design; earthquakes; geologic hazards; ground motion; methods; probability; risk assessment; seismic risk; statistical analysis; uncertainty DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00269-7 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Hydraulic entrapment of relict saline water within semi-confined aquifers in southwest Florida AN - 51833757; 2004-049265 AB - Isolated occurrences of saline water within semi-confined, predominantly freshwater aquifers in southwest Florida have long presented problems to water managers and users. These rather linear-oriented bodies of saline water occur within parts of the Sandstone Aquifer in Lee, Hendry, and Glades counties and within parts of the Lower Tamiami Aquifer in Lee and Collier counties. Water managers have commonly attributed these features to anthropogenic causes, particularly pumping-induced saline-water intrusion or vertical movement of saline water through improperly constructed wells. New hydrogeologic evidence and the use of solute-transport groundwater modeling shows that these features are the result of hydraulic entrapment of relict saline water, left unflushed from the aquifer from the last high sea level stand. Modern discharge features, such as streams and wetland sloughs, occurring in lower topographic areas cause the potentiometric surface of the surficial aquifer and the underlying semi-confined aquifer to be locally depressed. These narrow, linear depressions in the potentiometric surface of the semi-confined aquifer cause the flow field to be constricted, thereby trapping saline water. In areas away from the surface topographic depressions, flow through the semi-confined aquifers in the horizontal plane has no constrictions and recharge is directed downward through the overlying confining beds. Beneath and adjacent to modern drainage features, flow through the semi-confined aquifers is constricted in the horizontal plane and reversed in the vertical plane with potential upward movement. The combination of the gradient change and flow constriction reduces the flushing rate and produces the saline-water distribution pattern observed in the field. This is an example of an aquifer hydraulic trap based on flow constriction. JF - Transactions - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies AU - Missimer, Thomas M AU - Martin, W Kirk AU - Guo, Weixing A2 - Stone, Gregory W. A2 - Wrenn, John H. A2 - Bentley, Samuel J. Y1 - 2003/10// PY - 2003 DA - October 2003 SP - 557 EP - 570 PB - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, New Orleans, LA VL - 53 SN - 0533-6562, 0533-6562 KW - water use KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - Glades County Florida KW - Sandstone Aquifer KW - salt-water intrusion KW - human activity KW - confined aquifers KW - pumping KW - potentiometric surface KW - Tamiami Aquifer KW - salinity KW - Lee County Florida KW - Florida KW - environmental analysis KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - models KW - sea-level changes KW - Collier County Florida KW - hydrostratigraphy KW - Hendry County Florida KW - highstands KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51833757?accountid=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=Hydraulic+entrapment+of+relict+saline+water+within+semi-confined+aquifers+in+southwest+Florida&rft.au=Missimer%2C+Thomas+M%3BMartin%2C+W+Kirk%3BGuo%2C+Weixing&rft.aulast=Missimer&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=2003-10-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=&rft.spage=557&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 - 53rd annual convention, 50th GCSSEPM anniversary N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 29 N1 - PubXState - LA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. block diag., sects., strat. col., geol. sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - TGCGA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; Collier County Florida; confined aquifers; environmental analysis; Florida; Glades County Florida; ground water; Hendry County Florida; highstands; human activity; hydrology; hydrostratigraphy; Lee County Florida; models; potentiometric surface; pumping; salinity; salt-water intrusion; Sandstone Aquifer; sea-level changes; Tamiami Aquifer; United States; water use ER - TY - JOUR T1 - (super 210) Pb and (super 137) Cs geochronology of the Lake Fausse Pointe region of the lower Atchafalaya Basin AN - 51831248; 2004-049276 AB - Sediment deposition over the past century in the Lake Fausse Pointe region of the lower Atchafalaya basin was investigated through radioisotopic study of vibracores. Gamma spectrometric analysis of (super 137) Cs and (super 210) Pb isotopes reveals sedimentation rates on the order of 1-6 cm/yr, both inside and outside of the western guide levee of the Atchafalaya Basin. All cores analyzed display a sharp transition upward from blue-gray clay-rich lacustrine and backswamp deposits to red muds and sands that occurred between approximately 1875 and approximately 1955, based on (super 137) Cs and (super 210) Pb geochronology. Earliest infilling appears to have occurred near the center of lacustrine basins, with later deposition along basin margins. This timing is coincident with rejuvenation of flow in the Red and Atchafalaya Rivers, after breakup of The Great Raft log jams (Tyson, 1981). Decreased sedimentation rates are observed outside the western guide levee after the period of levee construction, approximately 1940-1960 (Ruess, 1998). The results of this study are supported by previous research that rapid deposition occurred between 1930 to 1960, when much of this basin region underwent rapid infilling with sediments derived from the Red and Mississippi Rivers. JF - Transactions - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies AU - Patterson, Luke J AU - Muhammad, Zahid AU - Bentley, Samuel J AU - Britsch, L Del AU - Dillon, Douglas L A2 - Stone, Gregory W. A2 - Wrenn, John H. A2 - Bentley, Samuel J. Y1 - 2003/10// PY - 2003 DA - October 2003 SP - 668 EP - 675 PB - Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies, New Orleans, LA VL - 53 SN - 0533-6562, 0533-6562 KW - United States KW - clay KW - Atchafalaya Basin KW - isotopes KW - lead KW - Holocene KW - cores KW - Cenozoic KW - radioactive isotopes KW - cesium KW - sedimentation rates KW - sediments KW - absolute age KW - Louisiana KW - bulk density KW - Quaternary KW - clastic sediments KW - sedimentation KW - alkali metals KW - Cs-137 KW - metals KW - lacustrine environment KW - Lake Fausse Pointe KW - upper Holocene KW - Iberia Parish Louisiana KW - Pb-210 KW - lake sediments KW - 03:Geochronology KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51831248?accountid=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=%28super+210%29+Pb+and+%28super+137%29+Cs+geochronology+of+the+Lake+Fausse+Pointe+region+of+the+lower+Atchafalaya+Basin&rft.au=Patterson%2C+Luke+J%3BMuhammad%2C+Zahid%3BBentley%2C+Samuel+J%3BBritsch%2C+L+Del%3BDillon%2C+Douglas+L&rft.aulast=Patterson&rft.aufirst=Luke&rft.date=2003-10-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=&rft.spage=668&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 - 53rd annual convention, 50th GCSSEPM anniversary N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 12 N1 - PubXState - LA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - TGCGA9 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - absolute age; alkali metals; Atchafalaya Basin; bulk density; Cenozoic; cesium; clastic sediments; clay; cores; Cs-137; Holocene; Iberia Parish Louisiana; isotopes; lacustrine environment; Lake Fausse Pointe; lake sediments; lead; Louisiana; metals; Pb-210; Quaternary; radioactive isotopes; sedimentation; sedimentation rates; sediments; United States; upper Holocene ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Removal of Hexavalent Chromium from Wastewater Using a New Composite Chitosan Biosorbent AN - 16176509; 5955143 AB - A new composite chitosan biosorbent was prepared by coating chitosan, a glucosamine biopolymer, onto ceramic alumina. The composite bioadsorbent was characterized by high-temperature pyrolysis, porosimetry, scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Batch isothermal equilibrium and continuous column adsorption experiments were conducted at 25 degree C to evaluate the biosorbent for the removal of hexavalent chromium from synthetic as well as field samples obtained from chrome plating facilities. The effect of pH, sulfate, and chloride ion on adsorption was also investigated. The biosorbent loaded with Cr(VI) was regenerated using 0.1 M sodium hydroxide solution. A comparison of the results of the present investigation with those reported in the literature showed that chitosan coated on alumina exhibits greater adsorption capacity for chromium(VI). Further, experimental equilibrium data were fitted to Langmuir and Freundlich adsorption isotherms, and values of the parameters of the isotherms are reported. The ultimate capacity obtained from the Langmuir model is 153.85 mg/g chitosan. JF - Environmental Science & Technology AU - Boddu, V M AU - Abburi, K AU - Talbott, J L AU - Smith, ED AD - Environmental Processes Branch, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, Champaign, IL 61826-9005, USA, veera.boddu@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2003/10/01/ PY - 2003 DA - 2003 Oct 01 SP - 4449 EP - 4456 VL - 37 IS - 19 SN - 0013-936X, 0013-936X KW - chitosan KW - Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Oceanic Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Bioengineering Abstracts KW - Electron Microscopy KW - Wastewater treatment KW - Biological treatment KW - Isotherms KW - pH effects KW - Metal-finishing Wastes KW - Chromium KW - Industrial Wastewater KW - Coating materials KW - Hydrogen Ion Concentration KW - Adsorbents KW - Sodium Hydroxide KW - Ceramics KW - Chitosan KW - Adsorption KW - Hydroxides KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - P 3000:SEWAGE & WASTEWATER TREATMENT KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - O 5040:Processing, Products and Marketing KW - SW 3040:Wastewater treatment processes KW - Q1 08625:Non-edible products KW - W 30965:Miscellaneous, Reviews KW - W4 210:Bioremediation, Bioreactors & BioCycling UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16176509?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Science+%26+Technology&rft.atitle=Removal+of+Hexavalent+Chromium+from+Wastewater+Using+a+New+Composite+Chitosan+Biosorbent&rft.au=Boddu%2C+V+M%3BAbburi%2C+K%3BTalbott%2C+J+L%3BSmith%2C+ED&rft.aulast=Boddu&rft.aufirst=V&rft.date=2003-10-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=4449&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 revised - 2005-08-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Ceramics; Chromium; Coating materials; Chitosan; Hydroxides; Isotherms; pH effects; Wastewater treatment; Biological treatment; Adsorbents; chitosan; Electron Microscopy; Metal-finishing Wastes; Industrial Wastewater; Adsorption; Hydrogen Ion Concentration; Sodium Hydroxide; Wastewater Treatment ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOWNTOWN AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH CORRIDOR PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON, AND CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FEBRUARY 1998 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ON THE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDOR PROJECT). AN - 36433175; 10435 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transit improvements in the metropolitan area of Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed in this final supplement to the February 1998 final EIS on proposed improvements in the north/south transportation corridor, which includes the cities of Oregon City, Gladstone, and Milwaukie; 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. This final supplemental EIS addresses 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 this 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. Estimated capital costs of the light rail alternative are $83.6 million or $125.5 million, depending on the terminus selected. Annual systemwide operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $293 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce traffic congestion and traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. Construction activities would provide 1,600 to 2,400 short-term jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The rights-of-way requirements would displace one business and areas associated with three parks. A variety of new visual elements related to the transit system would be introduced into the cityscape. Under one terminus alternative, noise generated by system operations would affect 12 sensitive sites, and vibration impacts would be experienced at one site. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1 and 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030446, 261 pages, September 26, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Employment KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36433175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOWNTOWN+AMENDMENT+TO+THE+SOUTH+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FEBRUARY+1998+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+ON+THE+NORTH%2FSOUTH+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%29.&rft.title=DOWNTOWN+AMENDMENT+TO+THE+SOUTH+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FEBRUARY+1998+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+ON+THE+NORTH%2FSOUTH+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 26, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOWNTOWN AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH CORRIDOR PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON, AND CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FEBRUARY 1998 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ON THE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDOR PROJECT). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DOWNTOWN AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH CORRIDOR PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON, AND CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FEBRUARY 1998 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ON THE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDOR PROJECT). AN - 36353719; 10435-030446_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transit improvements in the metropolitan area of Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington is proposed in this final supplement to the February 1998 final EIS on proposed improvements in the north/south transportation corridor, which includes the cities of Oregon City, Gladstone, and Milwaukie; 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. This final supplemental EIS addresses 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 this 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. Estimated capital costs of the light rail alternative are $83.6 million or $125.5 million, depending on the terminus selected. Annual systemwide operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $293 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce traffic congestion and traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. Construction activities would provide 1,600 to 2,400 short-term jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The rights-of-way requirements would displace one business and areas associated with three parks. A variety of new visual elements related to the transit system would be introduced into the cityscape. Under one terminus alternative, noise generated by system operations would affect 12 sensitive sites, and vibration impacts would be experienced at one site. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1 and 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030446, 261 pages, September 26, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Employment KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36353719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOWNTOWN+AMENDMENT+TO+THE+SOUTH+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FEBRUARY+1998+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+ON+THE+NORTH%2FSOUTH+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%29.&rft.title=DOWNTOWN+AMENDMENT+TO+THE+SOUTH+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON%2C+AND+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FEBRUARY+1998+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+STATEMENT+ON+THE+NORTH%2FSOUTH+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 26, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIAN STREET RIDGE PD&E STUDY: NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE SOUTH FORK OF THE ST. LUCIE RIVER, COUNTY ROAD 714 (MARTIN HIGHWAY)/SW 36TH STREET/INDIAN STREET, FROM FLORIDA'S TURNPIKE TO EAST OF WILLOUGHBY BOULEVARD, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INDIAN STREET RIDGE PD&E STUDY: NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE SOUTH FORK OF THE ST. LUCIE RIVER, COUNTY ROAD 714 (MARTIN HIGHWAY)/SW 36TH STREET/INDIAN STREET, FROM FLORIDA'S TURNPIKE TO EAST OF WILLOUGHBY BOULEVARD, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 36346325; 10437-030448_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new bridge crossing of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River from Florida's Turnpike to east of Willoughby Boulevard in Martin County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered by the Turnpike to the west, Federal Highway (State Route (SR) 5/US 1) to the east, the Interstate 95 (I-95) crossing of the St. Lucie Canal to the south, and the Martin/St/Lucie County line to the north. The project would extend along SR 714/Martin Highway and Southwest 36th Street, providing a new bridge over the South Fork and connecting with Indian Street. In April 1998, a feasibility study was completed addressing the improvement of SR 714 and the Palm City Bridge from four lanes to either six or eight lanes between Florida's Turnpike and Federal Highway. The study determined that it is not feasible to widen the existing SR 714 corridor and the Palm City Bridge. The report recommended that additional corridors be evaluated to provide the needed capacity between Palm City and Stuart, which would require a crossing of the only major tributary of the St. Lucie River. a report on new bridge crossing possibilities was completed in March 2001. Seven corridor alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, a two-lane and a four-lane cross-section are evaluated for each corridor. Combinations of two two-lane corridors are evaluated to achieve the needed four lanes. Finally, the corridor is broken down into four segments, and two or three final alternatives are presented for each segment. The combination of final alternatives would provide for a four-lane facility from the Turnpike to Kanner Highway and a four- or six-lane facility from Kanner Highway to Willoughby Boulevard. Depending on the combination of alternatives selected, estimated cost of the project ranges from $101 million to $141 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide an additional crossing of the St. Lucie River in a highly developed area of Martin County, complementing other transportation network developments in the area. The current bottlenecks at existing crossings would be relieved area growth would be accommodated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of numerous residential and commercial structures as well as sites providing public services. Five public recreation sites would be affected. Up to three acres of wetland would be displaced, and a portion of the highway would lie within floodplain land. Traffic generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at numerous locations along the roadway corridor. Construction activities would encounter seven 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 030448, 507 pages, September 26, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FL-EIS-03-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida 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, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIAN+STREET+RIDGE+PD%26E+STUDY%3A+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+SOUTH+FORK+OF+THE+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+COUNTY+ROAD+714+%28MARTIN+HIGHWAY%29%2FSW+36TH+STREET%2FINDIAN+STREET%2C+FROM+FLORIDA%27S+TURNPIKE+TO+EAST+OF+WILLOUGHBY+BOULEVARD%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=INDIAN+STREET+RIDGE+PD%26E+STUDY%3A+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+SOUTH+FORK+OF+THE+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+COUNTY+ROAD+714+%28MARTIN+HIGHWAY%29%2FSW+36TH+STREET%2FINDIAN+STREET%2C+FROM+FLORIDA%27S+TURNPIKE+TO+EAST+OF+WILLOUGHBY+BOULEVARD%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: September 26, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIAN STREET RIDGE PD&E STUDY: NEW BRIDGE CROSSING OF THE SOUTH FORK OF THE ST. LUCIE RIVER, COUNTY ROAD 714 (MARTIN HIGHWAY)/SW 36TH STREET/INDIAN STREET, FROM FLORIDA'S TURNPIKE TO EAST OF WILLOUGHBY BOULEVARD, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16364737; 10437 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new bridge crossing of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River from Florida's Turnpike to east of Willoughby Boulevard in Martin County, Florida is proposed. The study area is bordered by the Turnpike to the west, Federal Highway (State Route (SR) 5/US 1) to the east, the Interstate 95 (I-95) crossing of the St. Lucie Canal to the south, and the Martin/St/Lucie County line to the north. The project would extend along SR 714/Martin Highway and Southwest 36th Street, providing a new bridge over the South Fork and connecting with Indian Street. In April 1998, a feasibility study was completed addressing the improvement of SR 714 and the Palm City Bridge from four lanes to either six or eight lanes between Florida's Turnpike and Federal Highway. The study determined that it is not feasible to widen the existing SR 714 corridor and the Palm City Bridge. The report recommended that additional corridors be evaluated to provide the needed capacity between Palm City and Stuart, which would require a crossing of the only major tributary of the St. Lucie River. a report on new bridge crossing possibilities was completed in March 2001. Seven corridor alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. In addition, a two-lane and a four-lane cross-section are evaluated for each corridor. Combinations of two two-lane corridors are evaluated to achieve the needed four lanes. Finally, the corridor is broken down into four segments, and two or three final alternatives are presented for each segment. The combination of final alternatives would provide for a four-lane facility from the Turnpike to Kanner Highway and a four- or six-lane facility from Kanner Highway to Willoughby Boulevard. Depending on the combination of alternatives selected, estimated cost of the project ranges from $101 million to $141 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide an additional crossing of the St. Lucie River in a highly developed area of Martin County, complementing other transportation network developments in the area. The current bottlenecks at existing crossings would be relieved area growth would be accommodated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of numerous residential and commercial structures as well as sites providing public services. Five public recreation sites would be affected. Up to three acres of wetland would be displaced, and a portion of the highway would lie within floodplain land. Traffic generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at numerous locations along the roadway corridor. Construction activities would encounter seven 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 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 030448, 507 pages, September 26, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FL-EIS-03-02-D KW - Bridges KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida 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, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16364737?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-09-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIAN+STREET+RIDGE+PD%26E+STUDY%3A+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+SOUTH+FORK+OF+THE+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+COUNTY+ROAD+714+%28MARTIN+HIGHWAY%29%2FSW+36TH+STREET%2FINDIAN+STREET%2C+FROM+FLORIDA%27S+TURNPIKE+TO+EAST+OF+WILLOUGHBY+BOULEVARD%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=INDIAN+STREET+RIDGE+PD%26E+STUDY%3A+NEW+BRIDGE+CROSSING+OF+THE+SOUTH+FORK+OF+THE+ST.+LUCIE+RIVER%2C+COUNTY+ROAD+714+%28MARTIN+HIGHWAY%29%2FSW+36TH+STREET%2FINDIAN+STREET%2C+FROM+FLORIDA%27S+TURNPIKE+TO+EAST+OF+WILLOUGHBY+BOULEVARD%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&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 - Draft. Preparation date: September 26, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSS-BASE HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 704), PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CROSS-BASE HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 704), PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36352207; 10427-030438_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of 5.9 miles of arterial roadway between Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route (SR) 7 (Pacific Avenue) in the City of Lakewood and Pierce County, Washington is proposed. The project, to be known as Cross-Base Highway, would extend from the Thorne Lane interchange on I-5 to the intersection of 176th Street South and SR 7. The new roadway would provide four through lanes. In addition to the No Action alternative, a transportation demand management /transportation system management (TDM/TSM) and two primary build alternatives were considered in the May 1998 draft EIS; two alignment variations of one of the primary build alternatives were also considered. TDM strategies considered included employer-based programs, support facilities, telecommunications facilities, and transportation pricing and land use strategies. TSM strategies considered included traditional improvements such as intersection and traffic signal enhancements, transit improvements and street /highway management techniques such as ramp metering and high-occupancy-vehicle priority treatments. TDM/TSM strategies were rejected. Under the build alternative, access would be limited to three signalized intersections, including two in American Lake Gardens and one at the Spanaway Loop Road S extension, and an interchange at A Street providing access to McChord Air Force Base. The existing Thorne Lane interchange would be reconstructed to accommodate additional traffic, and the intersection of 176th Street South and SR 7 would be enlarged, providing additional lanes for turning movements. On Fort Lewis, Lincoln Road would be realigned to connect with the A Street interchange and a new military access road between Fort Lewis and McChord AFT would be provided on the east side of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. A June 2002 draft supplement to the draft EIS addressed additions to the project at its western terminus required to maintain a satisfactory level of service and provides current information where conditions or applicable policies or regulations have changed. In addition to a No Action Alternative, several possible alignment alternatives were considered in the draft supplement. A southern alignment, which was identified as the preferred alignment in the draft supplement, has been selected as the preferred alternative in the final EIS. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $131.99 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Cross-Base Highway would provide a necessary link in the regional transportation system, connecting existing and planned residential areas in mid-Pierce County and north Thurston County with two of the largest employment sites in Pierce County, Fredrickson, and DuPont. The arterial road would reduce projected traffic volumes and congestion, particularly during peak periods, on existing roads, including SR 7, SR 512, SR 507, Spanaway Loop Road S, and 174th Street S. All these roads are projected to operate at, near or above capacity in the year 2017 if additional east-west capacity is not added. The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan assumes the development of an arterial link between the mid-Pierce County area and the cities of Lakewood and DuPont. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in displacement of Clover Park Head State /American Lake South Facility, isolation of properties along Murray Road SW, or displacement of land owned by Fort Lewis and used by the technical college. Acquisition of right-of-way would also require displacement of housing units and up to three businesses. Under one alternative, minority populations would be affected by isolation of the southwest corner of American Lake Gardens. Highway construction would displace acres of wildlife habitat, including forest and scrub communities, and the highway would present a barrier to wildlife movements. The project would affect a portion of the Pierce County wetland buffer, and operation of the highway would impact water detention and treatment, drainage patterns, water quality and wildlife habitat. Traffic on the highway would increase noise levels within the corridor significantly and, though noise barriers would mitigate impacts to residents, 179 residences would be exposed to noise in excess of federal standards. Noise and traffic would alter the setting for the Woodbrook Hunt Club and generally change the visual appearance of the area adjacent to the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 98-0231D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 02-0420D, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030438, Volume 1--437 pages and maps, Volume 2--792 pages and maps, Volume 3--251 pages, September 22, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-02-03-DS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - McChord Air Force Base KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Executive Order 12898, Minorities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36352207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSS-BASE+HIGHWAY+%28STATE+ROUTE+704%29%2C+PIERCE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CROSS-BASE+HIGHWAY+%28STATE+ROUTE+704%29%2C+PIERCE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 22, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM CORRIDOR K (RELOCATED U.S. 64) FROM WEST OF THE OCOEE RIVER TO STATE ROUTE 68 NEAR DUCKTOWN, POLK COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM CORRIDOR K (RELOCATED U.S. 64) FROM WEST OF THE OCOEE RIVER TO STATE ROUTE 68 NEAR DUCKTOWN, POLK COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36351780; 10420-030429_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20.4- or 20.6-mile segment of highway within Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Corridor K (Relocated US 64) from a point west of the Ocoee River to State Route (SR) 68 near Ducktown in Polk County, Tennessee is proposed. The ADHS is a 3,025-mile network of highways that is comprised of 29 corridors in 13 states that provide transportation access essential for improving the Appalachian Region's economic position. As of September 2002, more than 85 percent of the ADHS was open to traffic or under construction. US 64, also designated SR 40 and US 74, is the only east-west arterial in the region and serves local, through, and recreational traffic. Portions of the new highway would be built on new location while other portions would follow existing US 64. The central segment of the project would pass through the Cherokee National Forest. The four-lane divided highway would replace existing two-lane US 64, which would remain in place through the Ocoee River George to serve local and recreational traffic, retaining its designation as a Scenic Byway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Construction costs of build alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $1.48 billion and $1.53 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the transportation system linkages in southeastern Tennessee, provide a highway that satisfies the design standards appropriate to a roadway within the ADHS and the National Truck Network, improve safety for vehicles and pedestrians within the corridor, reduce travel delays for through traffic, and promote the mission of the U.S. Forest Service's Scenic Byway Program. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require 823 or 852 acres of rights-of-way, including residential and commercial land, wetlands, farmland, open space, and woodland and the associated wildlife habitat. The highway alignment would traverse 30 or 31 stream or waterway crossings, including three crossings of the Ocoee River. Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of seven residences and three businesses, and two small farm operations would suffer minimal impacts. The highway would require new cuts in slopes characterized by unstable rock. Construction activities would expose pyritic rock, potentially resulting in acid leaching into area waterways, thereby affecting the quality of aquatic habitat. One archaeologic site listed in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, and several other sites that may be eligible for listing could be affected. Eight or nine recreational trail segments would be affected. The highway would degrade visual aesthetics and other recreational values along some segments of the Ocoee River corridor. One residence and four trails would be affected by traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 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). JF - EPA number: 030429, 390 pages, September 22, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-03-01-D KW - Acids KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Cherokee National Forest KW - Tennessee KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPALACHIAN+DEVELOPMENT+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+CORRIDOR+K+%28RELOCATED+U.S.+64%29+FROM+WEST+OF+THE+OCOEE+RIVER+TO+STATE+ROUTE+68+NEAR+DUCKTOWN%2C+POLK+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=APPALACHIAN+DEVELOPMENT+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+CORRIDOR+K+%28RELOCATED+U.S.+64%29+FROM+WEST+OF+THE+OCOEE+RIVER+TO+STATE+ROUTE+68+NEAR+DUCKTOWN%2C+POLK+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: September 22, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSS-BASE HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 704), PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CROSS-BASE HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 704), PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36350801; 10427-030438_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of 5.9 miles of arterial roadway between Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route (SR) 7 (Pacific Avenue) in the City of Lakewood and Pierce County, Washington is proposed. The project, to be known as Cross-Base Highway, would extend from the Thorne Lane interchange on I-5 to the intersection of 176th Street South and SR 7. The new roadway would provide four through lanes. In addition to the No Action alternative, a transportation demand management /transportation system management (TDM/TSM) and two primary build alternatives were considered in the May 1998 draft EIS; two alignment variations of one of the primary build alternatives were also considered. TDM strategies considered included employer-based programs, support facilities, telecommunications facilities, and transportation pricing and land use strategies. TSM strategies considered included traditional improvements such as intersection and traffic signal enhancements, transit improvements and street /highway management techniques such as ramp metering and high-occupancy-vehicle priority treatments. TDM/TSM strategies were rejected. Under the build alternative, access would be limited to three signalized intersections, including two in American Lake Gardens and one at the Spanaway Loop Road S extension, and an interchange at A Street providing access to McChord Air Force Base. The existing Thorne Lane interchange would be reconstructed to accommodate additional traffic, and the intersection of 176th Street South and SR 7 would be enlarged, providing additional lanes for turning movements. On Fort Lewis, Lincoln Road would be realigned to connect with the A Street interchange and a new military access road between Fort Lewis and McChord AFT would be provided on the east side of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. A June 2002 draft supplement to the draft EIS addressed additions to the project at its western terminus required to maintain a satisfactory level of service and provides current information where conditions or applicable policies or regulations have changed. In addition to a No Action Alternative, several possible alignment alternatives were considered in the draft supplement. A southern alignment, which was identified as the preferred alignment in the draft supplement, has been selected as the preferred alternative in the final EIS. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $131.99 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Cross-Base Highway would provide a necessary link in the regional transportation system, connecting existing and planned residential areas in mid-Pierce County and north Thurston County with two of the largest employment sites in Pierce County, Fredrickson, and DuPont. The arterial road would reduce projected traffic volumes and congestion, particularly during peak periods, on existing roads, including SR 7, SR 512, SR 507, Spanaway Loop Road S, and 174th Street S. All these roads are projected to operate at, near or above capacity in the year 2017 if additional east-west capacity is not added. The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan assumes the development of an arterial link between the mid-Pierce County area and the cities of Lakewood and DuPont. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in displacement of Clover Park Head State /American Lake South Facility, isolation of properties along Murray Road SW, or displacement of land owned by Fort Lewis and used by the technical college. Acquisition of right-of-way would also require displacement of housing units and up to three businesses. Under one alternative, minority populations would be affected by isolation of the southwest corner of American Lake Gardens. Highway construction would displace acres of wildlife habitat, including forest and scrub communities, and the highway would present a barrier to wildlife movements. The project would affect a portion of the Pierce County wetland buffer, and operation of the highway would impact water detention and treatment, drainage patterns, water quality and wildlife habitat. Traffic on the highway would increase noise levels within the corridor significantly and, though noise barriers would mitigate impacts to residents, 179 residences would be exposed to noise in excess of federal standards. Noise and traffic would alter the setting for the Woodbrook Hunt Club and generally change the visual appearance of the area adjacent to the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 98-0231D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 02-0420D, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030438, Volume 1--437 pages and maps, Volume 2--792 pages and maps, Volume 3--251 pages, September 22, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-02-03-DS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - McChord Air Force Base KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Executive Order 12898, Minorities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSS-BASE+HIGHWAY+%28STATE+ROUTE+704%29%2C+PIERCE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CROSS-BASE+HIGHWAY+%28STATE+ROUTE+704%29%2C+PIERCE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 22, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSS-BASE HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 704), PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CROSS-BASE HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 704), PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36349494; 10427-030438_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of 5.9 miles of arterial roadway between Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route (SR) 7 (Pacific Avenue) in the City of Lakewood and Pierce County, Washington is proposed. The project, to be known as Cross-Base Highway, would extend from the Thorne Lane interchange on I-5 to the intersection of 176th Street South and SR 7. The new roadway would provide four through lanes. In addition to the No Action alternative, a transportation demand management /transportation system management (TDM/TSM) and two primary build alternatives were considered in the May 1998 draft EIS; two alignment variations of one of the primary build alternatives were also considered. TDM strategies considered included employer-based programs, support facilities, telecommunications facilities, and transportation pricing and land use strategies. TSM strategies considered included traditional improvements such as intersection and traffic signal enhancements, transit improvements and street /highway management techniques such as ramp metering and high-occupancy-vehicle priority treatments. TDM/TSM strategies were rejected. Under the build alternative, access would be limited to three signalized intersections, including two in American Lake Gardens and one at the Spanaway Loop Road S extension, and an interchange at A Street providing access to McChord Air Force Base. The existing Thorne Lane interchange would be reconstructed to accommodate additional traffic, and the intersection of 176th Street South and SR 7 would be enlarged, providing additional lanes for turning movements. On Fort Lewis, Lincoln Road would be realigned to connect with the A Street interchange and a new military access road between Fort Lewis and McChord AFT would be provided on the east side of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. A June 2002 draft supplement to the draft EIS addressed additions to the project at its western terminus required to maintain a satisfactory level of service and provides current information where conditions or applicable policies or regulations have changed. In addition to a No Action Alternative, several possible alignment alternatives were considered in the draft supplement. A southern alignment, which was identified as the preferred alignment in the draft supplement, has been selected as the preferred alternative in the final EIS. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $131.99 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Cross-Base Highway would provide a necessary link in the regional transportation system, connecting existing and planned residential areas in mid-Pierce County and north Thurston County with two of the largest employment sites in Pierce County, Fredrickson, and DuPont. The arterial road would reduce projected traffic volumes and congestion, particularly during peak periods, on existing roads, including SR 7, SR 512, SR 507, Spanaway Loop Road S, and 174th Street S. All these roads are projected to operate at, near or above capacity in the year 2017 if additional east-west capacity is not added. The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan assumes the development of an arterial link between the mid-Pierce County area and the cities of Lakewood and DuPont. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in displacement of Clover Park Head State /American Lake South Facility, isolation of properties along Murray Road SW, or displacement of land owned by Fort Lewis and used by the technical college. Acquisition of right-of-way would also require displacement of housing units and up to three businesses. Under one alternative, minority populations would be affected by isolation of the southwest corner of American Lake Gardens. Highway construction would displace acres of wildlife habitat, including forest and scrub communities, and the highway would present a barrier to wildlife movements. The project would affect a portion of the Pierce County wetland buffer, and operation of the highway would impact water detention and treatment, drainage patterns, water quality and wildlife habitat. Traffic on the highway would increase noise levels within the corridor significantly and, though noise barriers would mitigate impacts to residents, 179 residences would be exposed to noise in excess of federal standards. Noise and traffic would alter the setting for the Woodbrook Hunt Club and generally change the visual appearance of the area adjacent to the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 98-0231D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 02-0420D, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030438, Volume 1--437 pages and maps, Volume 2--792 pages and maps, Volume 3--251 pages, September 22, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-02-03-DS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - McChord Air Force Base KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Executive Order 12898, Minorities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSS-BASE+HIGHWAY+%28STATE+ROUTE+704%29%2C+PIERCE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CROSS-BASE+HIGHWAY+%28STATE+ROUTE+704%29%2C+PIERCE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 22, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM CORRIDOR K (RELOCATED U.S. 64) FROM WEST OF THE OCOEE RIVER TO STATE ROUTE 68 NEAR DUCKTOWN, POLK COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 16352019; 10420 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 20.4- or 20.6-mile segment of highway within Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Corridor K (Relocated US 64) from a point west of the Ocoee River to State Route (SR) 68 near Ducktown in Polk County, Tennessee is proposed. The ADHS is a 3,025-mile network of highways that is comprised of 29 corridors in 13 states that provide transportation access essential for improving the Appalachian Region's economic position. As of September 2002, more than 85 percent of the ADHS was open to traffic or under construction. US 64, also designated SR 40 and US 74, is the only east-west arterial in the region and serves local, through, and recreational traffic. Portions of the new highway would be built on new location while other portions would follow existing US 64. The central segment of the project would pass through the Cherokee National Forest. The four-lane divided highway would replace existing two-lane US 64, which would remain in place through the Ocoee River George to serve local and recreational traffic, retaining its designation as a Scenic Byway. Three alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Construction costs of build alternatives 1 and 2 are estimated at $1.48 billion and $1.53 billion, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the transportation system linkages in southeastern Tennessee, provide a highway that satisfies the design standards appropriate to a roadway within the ADHS and the National Truck Network, improve safety for vehicles and pedestrians within the corridor, reduce travel delays for through traffic, and promote the mission of the U.S. Forest Service's Scenic Byway Program. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Depending on the build alternative selected, the project would require 823 or 852 acres of rights-of-way, including residential and commercial land, wetlands, farmland, open space, and woodland and the associated wildlife habitat. The highway alignment would traverse 30 or 31 stream or waterway crossings, including three crossings of the Ocoee River. Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of seven residences and three businesses, and two small farm operations would suffer minimal impacts. The highway would require new cuts in slopes characterized by unstable rock. Construction activities would expose pyritic rock, potentially resulting in acid leaching into area waterways, thereby affecting the quality of aquatic habitat. One archaeologic site listed in the National Register of Historic Places would be affected, and several other sites that may be eligible for listing could be affected. Eight or nine recreational trail segments would be affected. The highway would degrade visual aesthetics and other recreational values along some segments of the Ocoee River corridor. One residence and four trails would be affected by traffic-generated noise levels in excess of federal standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-4), Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 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). JF - EPA number: 030429, 390 pages, September 22, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-TN-EIS-03-01-D KW - Acids KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Open Space KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Cherokee National Forest KW - Tennessee KW - Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, Project Authorization KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16352019?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=APPALACHIAN+DEVELOPMENT+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+CORRIDOR+K+%28RELOCATED+U.S.+64%29+FROM+WEST+OF+THE+OCOEE+RIVER+TO+STATE+ROUTE+68+NEAR+DUCKTOWN%2C+POLK+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=APPALACHIAN+DEVELOPMENT+HIGHWAY+SYSTEM+CORRIDOR+K+%28RELOCATED+U.S.+64%29+FROM+WEST+OF+THE+OCOEE+RIVER+TO+STATE+ROUTE+68+NEAR+DUCKTOWN%2C+POLK+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: September 22, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CROSS-BASE HIGHWAY (STATE ROUTE 704), PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 15228942; 10427 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of 5.9 miles of arterial roadway between Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route (SR) 7 (Pacific Avenue) in the City of Lakewood and Pierce County, Washington is proposed. The project, to be known as Cross-Base Highway, would extend from the Thorne Lane interchange on I-5 to the intersection of 176th Street South and SR 7. The new roadway would provide four through lanes. In addition to the No Action alternative, a transportation demand management /transportation system management (TDM/TSM) and two primary build alternatives were considered in the May 1998 draft EIS; two alignment variations of one of the primary build alternatives were also considered. TDM strategies considered included employer-based programs, support facilities, telecommunications facilities, and transportation pricing and land use strategies. TSM strategies considered included traditional improvements such as intersection and traffic signal enhancements, transit improvements and street /highway management techniques such as ramp metering and high-occupancy-vehicle priority treatments. TDM/TSM strategies were rejected. Under the build alternative, access would be limited to three signalized intersections, including two in American Lake Gardens and one at the Spanaway Loop Road S extension, and an interchange at A Street providing access to McChord Air Force Base. The existing Thorne Lane interchange would be reconstructed to accommodate additional traffic, and the intersection of 176th Street South and SR 7 would be enlarged, providing additional lanes for turning movements. On Fort Lewis, Lincoln Road would be realigned to connect with the A Street interchange and a new military access road between Fort Lewis and McChord AFT would be provided on the east side of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad right-of-way. A June 2002 draft supplement to the draft EIS addressed additions to the project at its western terminus required to maintain a satisfactory level of service and provides current information where conditions or applicable policies or regulations have changed. In addition to a No Action Alternative, several possible alignment alternatives were considered in the draft supplement. A southern alignment, which was identified as the preferred alignment in the draft supplement, has been selected as the preferred alternative in the final EIS. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $131.99 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Cross-Base Highway would provide a necessary link in the regional transportation system, connecting existing and planned residential areas in mid-Pierce County and north Thurston County with two of the largest employment sites in Pierce County, Fredrickson, and DuPont. The arterial road would reduce projected traffic volumes and congestion, particularly during peak periods, on existing roads, including SR 7, SR 512, SR 507, Spanaway Loop Road S, and 174th Street S. All these roads are projected to operate at, near or above capacity in the year 2017 if additional east-west capacity is not added. The Pierce County Comprehensive Plan assumes the development of an arterial link between the mid-Pierce County area and the cities of Lakewood and DuPont. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in displacement of Clover Park Head State /American Lake South Facility, isolation of properties along Murray Road SW, or displacement of land owned by Fort Lewis and used by the technical college. Acquisition of right-of-way would also require displacement of housing units and up to three businesses. Under one alternative, minority populations would be affected by isolation of the southwest corner of American Lake Gardens. Highway construction would displace acres of wildlife habitat, including forest and scrub communities, and the highway would present a barrier to wildlife movements. The project would affect a portion of the Pierce County wetland buffer, and operation of the highway would impact water detention and treatment, drainage patterns, water quality and wildlife habitat. Traffic on the highway would increase noise levels within the corridor significantly and, though noise barriers would mitigate impacts to residents, 179 residences would be exposed to noise in excess of federal standards. Noise and traffic would alter the setting for the Woodbrook Hunt Club and generally change the visual appearance of the area adjacent to the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplement, see 98-0231D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 02-0420D, Volume 26, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030438, Volume 1--437 pages and maps, Volume 2--792 pages and maps, Volume 3--251 pages, September 22, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-02-03-DS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Minorities KW - Noise KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Schools KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - McChord Air Force Base KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Executive Order 11990, Wetlands KW - Executive Order 12898, Minorities KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15228942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CROSS-BASE+HIGHWAY+%28STATE+ROUTE+704%29%2C+PIERCE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CROSS-BASE+HIGHWAY+%28STATE+ROUTE+704%29%2C+PIERCE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 22, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MAINTENANCE DREDGING OF THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY: LAGUNA MADRE, TEXAS, NUECES, KLEBERG, KENEDY, WILLACY, AND CAMERON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 15225187; 10421 AB - PURPOSE: Continuation of maintenance dredging within the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) through the Laguna Madre in Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron counties, Texas is proposed. The Laguna Madre section of the GIWW extends 117 miles from the John F. Kennedy Causeway to the old Queen Isabella Causeway and roughly one mile inland on the east and west. The channel dimensions remain at 12 feet deep and 125 feet wide. The main channel requires maintenance every 23 to 60 months in selected reaches to remove approximately 200,000 to 3.0 million cubic yards of sediment. Maintenance is performed by contracted cutterhead-suction dredges; dredged materials are placed by hydraulic pipeline on both upland and open-bay placement areas. Current disposal practices impact over 9,000 areas of bay bottom. The Laguna Madre main channel section currently utilizes 61 placement areas for contract pipeline placement operations. Several environmental organizations have raised concerns about the environmental effects of open-water placement practices and the level of analysis conducted during draft and final EISs issued in 1975. Key issues identified during scoping for this final EIS include those related to water and sediment quality, coastal communities, finfish and shellfish resources, wildlife resources, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, socioeconomics, and hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), which would perpetuate existing disposal methods and sites, are considered in this final EIS. The newly proposed alternatives include several offshore options, an upland disposal alternative, open-base disposal, and sub-alternatives that address special cases. Six reaches of the Laguna Madre are addressed separately. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Cessation of open-bay placement of dredged material would prevent damage to benthos within the currently affected bay area as well as the release of contaminated sediments into the water column of the bay. The levels of toxins and other hazardous substances in finfish and shellfish would decline significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging would destroy benthos and release toxins into the water column in the affected areas, as would disposal in open-water areas inside or outside the bay. Upland disposal would displace vegetation and wildlife habitat. Approximately 3,477 acres would be impacted during placement activities; however this figure would represent 1,362 acres less than are currently affected by the No Action Alternative. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). section, but there is no direct reference to the legislation}. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0364D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030430, Final EIS--366 pages and maps, Appendices--975 pages and maps, September 22, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Fish KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Landfills KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15225187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-09-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MAINTENANCE+DREDGING+OF+THE+GULF+INTRACOASTAL+WATERWAY%3A+LAGUNA+MADRE%2C+TEXAS%2C+NUECES%2C+KLEBERG%2C+KENEDY%2C+WILLACY%2C+AND+CAMERON+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=MAINTENANCE+DREDGING+OF+THE+GULF+INTRACOASTAL+WATERWAY%3A+LAGUNA+MADRE%2C+TEXAS%2C+NUECES%2C+KLEBERG%2C+KENEDY%2C+WILLACY%2C+AND+CAMERON+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 - Final. Preparation date: September 22, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POGO MINE PROJECT, DELTA, ALASKA. AN - 16353510; 10416 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit to allow the discharge of waste waters from the Pogo gold mine project to the Goodpaster River, northeast of Delta Junction, Alaska is proposed. The mine would be developed on Alaska state land in the Goodpaster River Valley approximately 38 miles northeast of Delta Junction. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The proposed project (Alternative 2) would include a mill and camp complex, a dry-stack tailings pile and a water recycling tailings pond, an airstrip, gravel pits, laydown and fuel storage areas, and a local network of roads. Gold would be recovered by gravity separation, flotation concentration, and cyanide vat leaching. The mine would process between 2,500 and 3,500 tons of ore per day, which would result in the production of approximately 500,000 ounces of gold per year. Approximately half of the mine tailings would be returned underground as a paste backfill. Surface access to the mine would be provided by an all-season 49.5-mile road. Power would be supplied to the site from the regional grid via a 50-mile transmission line. Development of the mine would be performed over 25 to 33 months, and the mine would have an active life of 11 years based on current ore reserve estimates; mine life could be extended if additional reserves were found. The mine would operate 365 days per year. Following closure, all mined areas would be reclaimed. The capital cost of the project is estimated at $200 million to $250 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would provide for an efficient on-site means of mining and processing gold ore, contributing to the nation's need for this precious metal. The initial workforce of the mine would add 388 employees to local employment rolls. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 383 acres of surface disturbance would occur. Mining and reclamation activities would have impacts on surface water hydrology, groundwater hydrology, water quality, air quality, noise levels in the vicinity of the mine, wetlands, wildlife habitat, subsistence activities, and visual quality. 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 03-0267D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030425, Final EIS--821 pages and maps, Appendices--465 pages, September 12, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Airports KW - Employment KW - Hydrology KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Reclamation KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Subsistence KW - Tailings KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Goodpaster River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16353510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-09-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POGO+MINE+PROJECT%2C+DELTA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=POGO+MINE+PROJECT%2C+DELTA%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Water, Seattle, Washington; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 12, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36386083; 10413-030422_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 are of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant owned land. Two stormwater detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, covering this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrubland, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030422, Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Appendices--587 pages and maps, September 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36386083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36384167; 10413-030422_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 are of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant owned land. Two stormwater detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, covering this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrubland, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030422, Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Appendices--587 pages and maps, September 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36383715; 10413-030422_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 are of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant owned land. Two stormwater detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, covering this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrubland, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030422, Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Appendices--587 pages and maps, September 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 36381428; 10413-030422_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 are of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant owned land. Two stormwater detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, covering this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrubland, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030422, Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Appendices--587 pages and maps, September 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BP CHERRY POINT COGENERATION PROJECT, WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16364701; 10413 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 720-megawatt (MW), combined-cycle gas-fired cogeneration facility in Whatcom County, Washington are proposed. The facility would be located on a 265-acre site approximately 15 miles northwest of Bellingham and seven miles south of Blaine on land adjacent to the BP Cherry Point Refinery operated by BP West Coast Products, LLP, which would also construct and operate the generating station. The cogeneration facility, which would be operated as a stand-alone facility having a number of systems integrated with the facilities and operations of the refinery. The generator would provide steam and 85-MW of electricity to meet the operating needs of the refinery and 635 MW of electrical power for local and regional consumption. Major facilities would include a steam turbine generator, three combustion gas turbine generators, three heat recovery steam generators, three heat recovery steam generator exhaust stacks, three 150-million-volt-amp step-down transformers, an emergency diesel generator, and an evaporative cooling tower. The generation facility would occupy 33 are of applicant-owned, unimproved property, which is zoned for heavy impact industrial use. Laydown areas would occupy 36 acres. Wetland mitigation sites lying north of Grandview Road would occupy 110 acres. Whatcom County Public Utility District No. 1 (PUD) would supply industrial water to the facility under a new contract between the applicant and the PUD. Natural gas would be supplied from either the Arco Western Natural Gas Pipeline or the Cascade Natural Gas Pipeline, both of which run through applicant owned land. Two stormwater detention ponds would serve the site. Sanitary waste would be sent to the refinery and then to the Birch Bay Wastewater Treatment District Plant for treatment and discharge to Birch Bay. Wastewater from the cogeneration facility would be sent to the refinery for treatment and discharge at the refinery's Outfall 001 at the existing marine pier in the Strait of Georgia. Electricity from the project would be transmitted to the regional grid via a new 0.8-mile 230-kilovolt (kV) powerline extending from a switchyard at the cogeneration facility site to an interconnection point on the Bonneville Power Administration's Custer/Intalco Transmission Line NO. 2; the transmission line would require 15 acres of rights-of-way. To integrate this new power generation into the transmission grid, the Bonneville Power Administration may need to re-build 4.7 miles of existing 230-kV transmission line. Construction activities would commence during the first quarter of 2004 and continue for 25 months. In addition to the proposed action, a No Action alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would provide a stable and reliable source of electricity and steam to meet the needs of the adjacent refinery and provide electricity to the Bonneville Federal Columbia River Transmission System. Construction and operation of the plant would employ 372 and 30 workers, respectively. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The cogeneration facility would displace 195 acres of undeveloped land, covering this area to site project facilities and wetland mitigation areas. Approximately 35.5 acres of wetland would be disturbed, including 30.66 acres that would be permanently displaced. Prime farmland, forested land, shrubland, and land used for livestock grazing would be displaced as well. Approximately 126,000 cubic yards of fill material would be required for facility development. The facility would lie within a seismically active area, and ash from volcanic eruptions could affect generator functioning. Facility operations would result in air pollutant emissions falling into several categories. Operations would consume between 2,244 and 2,316 gallons per minute of process water for cooling and other facility functions. Wastewater and runoff of water containing hazardous materials could affect surface water and groundwater quality in the area. Facilities at the cogeneration plant would mar visual aesthetics in the area somewhat. Plant construction could affect archaeological sites important to the Lummi Indian Nation. Traffic generated by construction and operation activities would place stress on the local transportation network. LEGAL MANDATES: Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. 832(a) et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030422, Draft EIS--621 pages and maps, Appendices--587 pages and maps, September 11, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0349 KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cooling Systems KW - Drainage KW - Earthquakes KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Refineries KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Volcanoes KW - Wastewater KW - Wastewater Treatment KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Washington KW - Bonneville Project Act of 1937, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16364701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-09-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=BP+CHERRY+POINT+COGENERATION+PROJECT%2C+WHATCOM+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WYOMING FOREST HIGHWAY 4, U.S. (KP 39.5 TO KP 69.4), THE BEARTOOTH HIGHWAY, PARK COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - WYOMING FOREST HIGHWAY 4, U.S. (KP 39.5 TO KP 69.4), THE BEARTOOTH HIGHWAY, PARK COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 36350408; 10403-030411_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a portion of the Beartooth Highway in Park County, Wyoming is proposed. The Beartooth Highway extends 67 miles from the northeast entrance to Yellowstone National Park to Red Lodge, Montana. The segment proposed for reconstruction begins at mile post 24.5, just west of the Clay Butte Lookout turnoff, traverses Beartooth Pass, and ends at the Montana/Wyoming state line at mile post 43.1. The highway passes through the Shoshone National Forest. This segment of highway has not been subject to any major improvements since the 1930s. The road has deteriorated significantly and does not accommodate current vehicle types or volumes. The reconstruction project would lie within the existing road corridor and would provide improved alignment, grade, and width to meet state standards. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. All build alternatives would follow the existing alignment closely in most locations. Options for realignment or road construction in six areas are considered. Some build alternatives have alignment options designed to avoid wetlands, to reduce visual impacts, or to provide a more consistent alignment. A work camp is proposed for use by employees during the six-year construction period. The preferred alternative (Alternative 6) would balance highway operations, safety and maintenance needs with minimization of environmental impacts. The roadway width would be 32 feet in the western portion of the corridor and 26 feet in the alpine areas of the eastern portion. Construction would begin in 2004 and continue for six years. Cost of construction of the preferred alternative is estimated at $47.8 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would maintain and improve an efficient transportation link between Red Lodge and the Yellowstone National park that would safely accommodate projected traffic through the year 2025. Maintenance of the highway would be eased significantly, and the roadway would better support management of national forest lands adjacent to the road. The scenic nature of the road would be preserved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would disturb 173 to 194 acres of previously undisturbed areas. Anticipated effects would include disturbance of six to 8 acres of wetlands and the permanent loss of 17 to 22 acres of alpine meadows and 17 to 24 acres of grizzly bear habitat. All build alternatives would alter the footprint and location of the historic roadway and all alternatives, excepting one, would remove four historic bridges. The exceptional alternative would require removal of three of the bridges. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217), 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 Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 7600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0419D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030411, Final EIS--326 pages and maps, Appendices--298 pages and maps, September 4, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WY-EIS-02-1-F KW - Bridges KW - Cost Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Shoshone National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Endangered Species Act of 1966, Animals KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1964, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WYOMING+FOREST+HIGHWAY+4%2C+U.S.+%28KP+39.5+TO+KP+69.4%29%2C+THE+BEARTOOTH+HIGHWAY%2C+PARK+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=WYOMING+FOREST+HIGHWAY+4%2C+U.S.+%28KP+39.5+TO+KP+69.4%29%2C+THE+BEARTOOTH+HIGHWAY%2C+PARK+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 4, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. AN - 36381871; 10400-030407_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more open-water dredged material disposal sites in western and central Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York is proposed. If designed, one or more of these sites could be used for disposal of material dredged from navigation projects and other sources associated with Connecticut and New York rivers, harbors, and coastal areas if the resulting material was found to be suitable for open-water disposal. Currently, no disposal sites are designated for long-term use within Long Island Sound. The currently used sites are authorized for periods of time that will end at various times in the relatively near future. Initial screening eliminated open ocean, upland, beneficial use, and treatment technology alternatives. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and eleven specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as well as evaluation factors specific to Long Island Sound, the four open-water sites were selected for detailed consideration in this draft EIS, along with a No Action Alternative. Two of these sites are currently active dredged material disposal sites, while the other two are inactive historic dredged material disposal sites. The original site analysis encompassed the area of Long Island Sound between the confluence of the East River and the Harlem River at Hells Gate on the western end and Mulberry Point, Connecticut to Mattituck Point, New York on the eastern end. Subsequently the area was modified to encompass the western and central regions of the sound. The preferred alternatives would result in the use of two sites The Western Long Island Sound site is a 1.2 X 1.3 nautical mile rectangular area in the Western Long Island Sound that has been used for dredged material disposal since 1982. The site is located 2.7 nautical miles north of Lloyd Point, New York and 2.5 nautical miles south of Long Neck Point near Noroton, Connecticut in water depths of 79 to 118 feet. The Central Long Island Sound Alternative, which has been one of the most active dredged material disposal sites in New England, is a rectangular site, approximately two nautical moles by one nautical mile, located 5.6 nautical miles south of South End Point near East Haven, Connecticut in water depths ranging from 59 to 74 feet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the sites would allow for periodic dredging and dredged material disposal to maintain the river, harbor, and coastal channels under federal jurisdiction, maintaining safe navigation and efficient movement of marine commerce. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal operations would result in temporary increase in suspended solids in the water column in the vicinity of and down-current of the disposal site. The dumped material would bury non-motile benthic organisms. Bottom topographies at the sites would be altered. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030407, Executive Summary--19 pages, Draft EIS--199 pages, Appendix A(1)--1,209 pages, Appendix A(2)--181 pages, Appendix B-110 pages, Appendix C--67 pages, Appendix D--19 pages, Appendix E--188 pages and maps, Appendix F 1(1)--515 pages, Appendix F(2)--657 pages, Appendix G--531 pages, Appendix H(1)--1,669 pages, Appendix H(2)--871 pages, Appendix I--19 pages, Appendix J--140 pages, September 2, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Wastes KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Connecticut KW - Long Island Sound KW - New York 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/36381871?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. AN - 36373489; 10400-030407_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more open-water dredged material disposal sites in western and central Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York is proposed. If designed, one or more of these sites could be used for disposal of material dredged from navigation projects and other sources associated with Connecticut and New York rivers, harbors, and coastal areas if the resulting material was found to be suitable for open-water disposal. Currently, no disposal sites are designated for long-term use within Long Island Sound. The currently used sites are authorized for periods of time that will end at various times in the relatively near future. Initial screening eliminated open ocean, upland, beneficial use, and treatment technology alternatives. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and eleven specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as well as evaluation factors specific to Long Island Sound, the four open-water sites were selected for detailed consideration in this draft EIS, along with a No Action Alternative. Two of these sites are currently active dredged material disposal sites, while the other two are inactive historic dredged material disposal sites. The original site analysis encompassed the area of Long Island Sound between the confluence of the East River and the Harlem River at Hells Gate on the western end and Mulberry Point, Connecticut to Mattituck Point, New York on the eastern end. Subsequently the area was modified to encompass the western and central regions of the sound. The preferred alternatives would result in the use of two sites The Western Long Island Sound site is a 1.2 X 1.3 nautical mile rectangular area in the Western Long Island Sound that has been used for dredged material disposal since 1982. The site is located 2.7 nautical miles north of Lloyd Point, New York and 2.5 nautical miles south of Long Neck Point near Noroton, Connecticut in water depths of 79 to 118 feet. The Central Long Island Sound Alternative, which has been one of the most active dredged material disposal sites in New England, is a rectangular site, approximately two nautical moles by one nautical mile, located 5.6 nautical miles south of South End Point near East Haven, Connecticut in water depths ranging from 59 to 74 feet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the sites would allow for periodic dredging and dredged material disposal to maintain the river, harbor, and coastal channels under federal jurisdiction, maintaining safe navigation and efficient movement of marine commerce. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal operations would result in temporary increase in suspended solids in the water column in the vicinity of and down-current of the disposal site. The dumped material would bury non-motile benthic organisms. Bottom topographies at the sites would be altered. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030407, Executive Summary--19 pages, Draft EIS--199 pages, Appendix A(1)--1,209 pages, Appendix A(2)--181 pages, Appendix B-110 pages, Appendix C--67 pages, Appendix D--19 pages, Appendix E--188 pages and maps, Appendix F 1(1)--515 pages, Appendix F(2)--657 pages, Appendix G--531 pages, Appendix H(1)--1,669 pages, Appendix H(2)--871 pages, Appendix I--19 pages, Appendix J--140 pages, September 2, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Wastes KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Connecticut KW - Long Island Sound KW - New York 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/36373489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. AN - 36373448; 10400-030407_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more open-water dredged material disposal sites in western and central Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York is proposed. If designed, one or more of these sites could be used for disposal of material dredged from navigation projects and other sources associated with Connecticut and New York rivers, harbors, and coastal areas if the resulting material was found to be suitable for open-water disposal. Currently, no disposal sites are designated for long-term use within Long Island Sound. The currently used sites are authorized for periods of time that will end at various times in the relatively near future. Initial screening eliminated open ocean, upland, beneficial use, and treatment technology alternatives. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and eleven specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as well as evaluation factors specific to Long Island Sound, the four open-water sites were selected for detailed consideration in this draft EIS, along with a No Action Alternative. Two of these sites are currently active dredged material disposal sites, while the other two are inactive historic dredged material disposal sites. The original site analysis encompassed the area of Long Island Sound between the confluence of the East River and the Harlem River at Hells Gate on the western end and Mulberry Point, Connecticut to Mattituck Point, New York on the eastern end. Subsequently the area was modified to encompass the western and central regions of the sound. The preferred alternatives would result in the use of two sites The Western Long Island Sound site is a 1.2 X 1.3 nautical mile rectangular area in the Western Long Island Sound that has been used for dredged material disposal since 1982. The site is located 2.7 nautical miles north of Lloyd Point, New York and 2.5 nautical miles south of Long Neck Point near Noroton, Connecticut in water depths of 79 to 118 feet. The Central Long Island Sound Alternative, which has been one of the most active dredged material disposal sites in New England, is a rectangular site, approximately two nautical moles by one nautical mile, located 5.6 nautical miles south of South End Point near East Haven, Connecticut in water depths ranging from 59 to 74 feet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the sites would allow for periodic dredging and dredged material disposal to maintain the river, harbor, and coastal channels under federal jurisdiction, maintaining safe navigation and efficient movement of marine commerce. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal operations would result in temporary increase in suspended solids in the water column in the vicinity of and down-current of the disposal site. The dumped material would bury non-motile benthic organisms. Bottom topographies at the sites would be altered. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030407, Executive Summary--19 pages, Draft EIS--199 pages, Appendix A(1)--1,209 pages, Appendix A(2)--181 pages, Appendix B-110 pages, Appendix C--67 pages, Appendix D--19 pages, Appendix E--188 pages and maps, Appendix F 1(1)--515 pages, Appendix F(2)--657 pages, Appendix G--531 pages, Appendix H(1)--1,669 pages, Appendix H(2)--871 pages, Appendix I--19 pages, Appendix J--140 pages, September 2, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Wastes KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Connecticut KW - Long Island Sound KW - New York 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/36373448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. AN - 36370174; 10400-030407_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more open-water dredged material disposal sites in western and central Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York is proposed. If designed, one or more of these sites could be used for disposal of material dredged from navigation projects and other sources associated with Connecticut and New York rivers, harbors, and coastal areas if the resulting material was found to be suitable for open-water disposal. Currently, no disposal sites are designated for long-term use within Long Island Sound. The currently used sites are authorized for periods of time that will end at various times in the relatively near future. Initial screening eliminated open ocean, upland, beneficial use, and treatment technology alternatives. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and eleven specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as well as evaluation factors specific to Long Island Sound, the four open-water sites were selected for detailed consideration in this draft EIS, along with a No Action Alternative. Two of these sites are currently active dredged material disposal sites, while the other two are inactive historic dredged material disposal sites. The original site analysis encompassed the area of Long Island Sound between the confluence of the East River and the Harlem River at Hells Gate on the western end and Mulberry Point, Connecticut to Mattituck Point, New York on the eastern end. Subsequently the area was modified to encompass the western and central regions of the sound. The preferred alternatives would result in the use of two sites The Western Long Island Sound site is a 1.2 X 1.3 nautical mile rectangular area in the Western Long Island Sound that has been used for dredged material disposal since 1982. The site is located 2.7 nautical miles north of Lloyd Point, New York and 2.5 nautical miles south of Long Neck Point near Noroton, Connecticut in water depths of 79 to 118 feet. The Central Long Island Sound Alternative, which has been one of the most active dredged material disposal sites in New England, is a rectangular site, approximately two nautical moles by one nautical mile, located 5.6 nautical miles south of South End Point near East Haven, Connecticut in water depths ranging from 59 to 74 feet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the sites would allow for periodic dredging and dredged material disposal to maintain the river, harbor, and coastal channels under federal jurisdiction, maintaining safe navigation and efficient movement of marine commerce. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal operations would result in temporary increase in suspended solids in the water column in the vicinity of and down-current of the disposal site. The dumped material would bury non-motile benthic organisms. Bottom topographies at the sites would be altered. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030407, Executive Summary--19 pages, Draft EIS--199 pages, Appendix A(1)--1,209 pages, Appendix A(2)--181 pages, Appendix B-110 pages, Appendix C--67 pages, Appendix D--19 pages, Appendix E--188 pages and maps, Appendix F 1(1)--515 pages, Appendix F(2)--657 pages, Appendix G--531 pages, Appendix H(1)--1,669 pages, Appendix H(2)--871 pages, Appendix I--19 pages, Appendix J--140 pages, September 2, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Wastes KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Connecticut KW - Long Island Sound KW - New York 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/36370174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. AN - 36370140; 10400-030407_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more open-water dredged material disposal sites in western and central Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York is proposed. If designed, one or more of these sites could be used for disposal of material dredged from navigation projects and other sources associated with Connecticut and New York rivers, harbors, and coastal areas if the resulting material was found to be suitable for open-water disposal. Currently, no disposal sites are designated for long-term use within Long Island Sound. The currently used sites are authorized for periods of time that will end at various times in the relatively near future. Initial screening eliminated open ocean, upland, beneficial use, and treatment technology alternatives. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and eleven specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as well as evaluation factors specific to Long Island Sound, the four open-water sites were selected for detailed consideration in this draft EIS, along with a No Action Alternative. Two of these sites are currently active dredged material disposal sites, while the other two are inactive historic dredged material disposal sites. The original site analysis encompassed the area of Long Island Sound between the confluence of the East River and the Harlem River at Hells Gate on the western end and Mulberry Point, Connecticut to Mattituck Point, New York on the eastern end. Subsequently the area was modified to encompass the western and central regions of the sound. The preferred alternatives would result in the use of two sites The Western Long Island Sound site is a 1.2 X 1.3 nautical mile rectangular area in the Western Long Island Sound that has been used for dredged material disposal since 1982. The site is located 2.7 nautical miles north of Lloyd Point, New York and 2.5 nautical miles south of Long Neck Point near Noroton, Connecticut in water depths of 79 to 118 feet. The Central Long Island Sound Alternative, which has been one of the most active dredged material disposal sites in New England, is a rectangular site, approximately two nautical moles by one nautical mile, located 5.6 nautical miles south of South End Point near East Haven, Connecticut in water depths ranging from 59 to 74 feet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the sites would allow for periodic dredging and dredged material disposal to maintain the river, harbor, and coastal channels under federal jurisdiction, maintaining safe navigation and efficient movement of marine commerce. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal operations would result in temporary increase in suspended solids in the water column in the vicinity of and down-current of the disposal site. The dumped material would bury non-motile benthic organisms. Bottom topographies at the sites would be altered. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030407, Executive Summary--19 pages, Draft EIS--199 pages, Appendix A(1)--1,209 pages, Appendix A(2)--181 pages, Appendix B-110 pages, Appendix C--67 pages, Appendix D--19 pages, Appendix E--188 pages and maps, Appendix F 1(1)--515 pages, Appendix F(2)--657 pages, Appendix G--531 pages, Appendix H(1)--1,669 pages, Appendix H(2)--871 pages, Appendix I--19 pages, Appendix J--140 pages, September 2, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Wastes KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Connecticut KW - Long Island Sound KW - New York 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/36370140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESIGNATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES IN CENTRAL AND WESTERN LONG ISLAND SOUND, CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK. AN - 16357009; 10400 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of one or more open-water dredged material disposal sites in western and central Long Island Sound, Connecticut and New York is proposed. If designed, one or more of these sites could be used for disposal of material dredged from navigation projects and other sources associated with Connecticut and New York rivers, harbors, and coastal areas if the resulting material was found to be suitable for open-water disposal. Currently, no disposal sites are designated for long-term use within Long Island Sound. The currently used sites are authorized for periods of time that will end at various times in the relatively near future. Initial screening eliminated open ocean, upland, beneficial use, and treatment technology alternatives. Through a site screening process that considered the five general and eleven specific criteria in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 as well as evaluation factors specific to Long Island Sound, the four open-water sites were selected for detailed consideration in this draft EIS, along with a No Action Alternative. Two of these sites are currently active dredged material disposal sites, while the other two are inactive historic dredged material disposal sites. The original site analysis encompassed the area of Long Island Sound between the confluence of the East River and the Harlem River at Hells Gate on the western end and Mulberry Point, Connecticut to Mattituck Point, New York on the eastern end. Subsequently the area was modified to encompass the western and central regions of the sound. The preferred alternatives would result in the use of two sites The Western Long Island Sound site is a 1.2 X 1.3 nautical mile rectangular area in the Western Long Island Sound that has been used for dredged material disposal since 1982. The site is located 2.7 nautical miles north of Lloyd Point, New York and 2.5 nautical miles south of Long Neck Point near Noroton, Connecticut in water depths of 79 to 118 feet. The Central Long Island Sound Alternative, which has been one of the most active dredged material disposal sites in New England, is a rectangular site, approximately two nautical moles by one nautical mile, located 5.6 nautical miles south of South End Point near East Haven, Connecticut in water depths ranging from 59 to 74 feet. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The availability of the sites would allow for periodic dredging and dredged material disposal to maintain the river, harbor, and coastal channels under federal jurisdiction, maintaining safe navigation and efficient movement of marine commerce. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disposal operations would result in temporary increase in suspended solids in the water column in the vicinity of and down-current of the disposal site. The dumped material would bury non-motile benthic organisms. Bottom topographies at the sites would be altered. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030407, Executive Summary--19 pages, Draft EIS--199 pages, Appendix A(1)--1,209 pages, Appendix A(2)--181 pages, Appendix B-110 pages, Appendix C--67 pages, Appendix D--19 pages, Appendix E--188 pages and maps, Appendix F 1(1)--515 pages, Appendix F(2)--657 pages, Appendix G--531 pages, Appendix H(1)--1,669 pages, Appendix H(2)--871 pages, Appendix I--19 pages, Appendix J--140 pages, September 2, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Wastes KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Connecticut KW - Long Island Sound KW - New York 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/16357009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-09-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.title=DESIGNATION+OF+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITES+IN+CENTRAL+AND+WESTERN+LONG+ISLAND+SOUND%2C+CONNECTICUT+AND+NEW+YORK.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, Massachusetts; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Methane recovery and generation pilot testing from a solid waste management unit AN - 50890613; 2004-061929 JF - AEHS Contaminated Soil Sediment & Water AU - Cagnetta, Peter J AU - Abeln, Brooks AU - Diggs, Isaac AU - Keiser, John AU - Kidwai, Zainul AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - September 2003 SP - 52 PB - Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS), Amherst, MA VL - 2003, Sept SN - 1533-4155, 1533-4155 KW - soils KW - concentration KW - experimental studies KW - methane KW - oxygen KW - pollutants KW - aliphatic hydrocarbons KW - pollution KW - porous materials KW - alkanes KW - carbon dioxide KW - waste management KW - organic compounds KW - hydrocarbons KW - waste disposal KW - solid waste KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50890613?accountid=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=AEHS+Contaminated+Soil+Sediment+%26+Water&rft.atitle=Methane+recovery+and+generation+pilot+testing+from+a+solid+waste+management+unit&rft.au=Cagnetta%2C+Peter+J%3BAbeln%2C+Brooks%3BDiggs%2C+Isaac%3BKeiser%2C+John%3BKidwai%2C+Zainul%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Cagnetta&rft.aufirst=Peter&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=2003%2C+Sept&rft.issue=&rft.spage=52&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=AEHS+Contaminated+Soil+Sediment+%26+Water&rft.issn=15334155&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.aehsmag.com/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - 18th annual international conference on Contaminated soils, sediments and water N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - PubXState - MA N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aliphatic hydrocarbons; alkanes; carbon dioxide; concentration; experimental studies; hydrocarbons; methane; organic compounds; oxygen; pollutants; pollution; porous materials; soils; solid waste; waste disposal; waste management ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Distribution and Fate of Energetics on DoD Test and Training Ranges: Interim Report 3 AN - 19445275; 7170630 AB - Sustainment of training to maintain the readiness of our armed forces requires stewardship of human health and the environment. The objective of this project, initiated in FY00 and planned for completion in FY05, was to determine the potential for environmental contamination from residues of energetic materials on ranges. This report describes accomplishments for FY02. A U.S. and a Canadian site were characterized for explosives residues resulting from live-fire soldier training: Fort Bliss, New Mexico, and Canadian Forces Base (CFB), Shilo, Manitoba. Results are also reported on tests to determine residues associated with open detonations and low-order detonations and tests to define environmental fate and transport process descriptors. Results of intensive sampling at Fort Bliss indicated that judgmental sampling targeting low-order residues and firing points is superior to grid sampling for identifying potential point sources of contamination over the typically large training range areas. Furthermore, composite sampling offers the best opportunity of capturing a realistic concentration under the conditions of extreme heterogeneity. Results of open detonations tests confirmed that the use of C4 generates significant explosives residuals. In low-order detonation tests, controlling the percent energy yield of artillery projectiles proved difficult. Adjustments in the variables from these results will improve control of future detonation tests. At CFB Shilo, energetic materials found in soils were associated with targets, and propellants were associated with firing points. The Shilo ranges exhibited relatively low levels of contamination not requiring immediate corrective action. Results of soil partitioning tests demonstrated that pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and tetryl are degraded in surface and aquifer soils. While adsorption is relatively limited and will not impede transport, degradation may be sufficient to reduce transport of these explosives. Results illustrate the importance of soil properties in determining the transport potential for explosives. Study results provide data for estimation of firing range source terms, protocols for contaminant characterization, descriptions of residues from low-order detonations and from various unexploded ordnance (UXO) demolition procedures, and fate and transport process descriptors for energetic residues. These data support environmental compliance and training range sustainment. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Pennington, J C AU - Brannon, J M AU - Jenkins, T F AU - Hewitt, AD AU - Stark, JA AU - Lambert, D AU - Perron, N M AU - Taylor, S AU - Ampleman, G AU - Thiboutot, S AU - Lewis, J AU - Marois, A AU - Brousseau, P AU - Gagnon, A Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - Sep 2003 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Aquifers KW - USA, New Mexico KW - composite materials KW - Laboratory testing KW - Residues KW - Training KW - Compliance KW - Propellants KW - transport processes KW - Soil KW - soil properties KW - Adsorption KW - Groundwater pollution KW - Explosives KW - Canada, Manitoba KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19445275?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%3BBrannon%2C+J+M%3BJenkins%2C+T+F%3BHewitt%2C+AD%3BStark%2C+JA%3BLambert%2C+D%3BPerron%2C+N+M%3BTaylor%2C+S%3BAmpleman%2C+G%3BThiboutot%2C+S%3BLewis%2C+J%3BMarois%2C+A%3BBrousseau%2C+P%3BGagnon%2C+A&rft.aulast=Pennington&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Distribution+and+Fate+of+Energetics+on+DoD+Test+and+Training+Ranges%3A+Interim+Report+3&rft.title=Distribution+and+Fate+of+Energetics+on+DoD+Test+and+Training+Ranges%3A+Interim+Report+3&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 - Evaluation of Island and Nearshore Confined Disposal Facility Alternatives, Pascagoula River Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan AN - 19444213; 7170629 AB - The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) performed a number of engineering studies in support of U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile (SAM) efforts to develop a Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) for the Federal navigation project at Pascagoula, MS. The studies focused on evaluating an option under consideration for the placement of dredged material in an island confined disposal facility (CDF). Numerical modeling of circulation, water quality, and wave climatology were performed to examine the potential impacts of an island CDF, and for engineering design considerations. Field measurements of currents and waves in the Mississippi Sound were made. A number of studies were performed to examine the sediment consolidation process in the CDF with the primary objective of assessing its dredged material volume capacity. Quantitative and qualitative studies results were produced for three alternative locations. The three locations are an island CDF just northeast of Round Island and southeast of the Singing River, between Round Island and the main navigation channel leading to Horn Island Pass and the Gulf of Mexico, and north of the point where the main navigation channel bifurcates to service the Pascagoula River and Bayou Casotte Harbors. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Corson, W D AU - Ebersole, BA AU - Lin, L AU - Mark, D J AU - McKinney, J P AU - Smith, S J AU - Tracy, BA AU - Tubman, M W AU - Welp, T L AU - Bunch, B W AU - Channell, M AU - Pranger, SA AU - Schroeder, PR AU - Tillman, D H Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - September 2003 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - water quality KW - ANW, Canada, Newfoundland, Round I. KW - Freshwater KW - Water quality KW - Consolidation KW - Engineering KW - ASW, USA, Alabama, Mississippi Sound KW - Waves KW - Climatology KW - Research KW - Rivers KW - Sediment pollution KW - Mathematical models KW - management plans KW - Laboratory testing KW - Bayous KW - Climate KW - Navigation KW - Harbours KW - USA, Mississippi, Pascagoula R. KW - ASW, Mexico Gulf KW - Channels KW - ASW, USA, Mississippi, Horn I. KW - navigation KW - Dredging KW - Capacity KW - Harbors KW - Environment management KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution KW - Q5 08521:Mechanical and natural changes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19444213?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=Corson%2C+W+D%3BEbersole%2C+BA%3BLin%2C+L%3BMark%2C+D+J%3BMcKinney%2C+J+P%3BSmith%2C+S+J%3BTracy%2C+BA%3BTubman%2C+M+W%3BWelp%2C+T+L%3BBunch%2C+B+W%3BChannell%2C+M%3BPranger%2C+SA%3BSchroeder%2C+PR%3BTillman%2C+D+H&rft.aulast=Corson&rft.aufirst=W&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Evaluation+of+Island+and+Nearshore+Confined+Disposal+Facility+Alternatives%2C+Pascagoula+River+Harbor+Dredged+Material+Management+Plan&rft.title=Evaluation+of+Island+and+Nearshore+Confined+Disposal+Facility+Alternatives%2C+Pascagoula+River+Harbor+Dredged+Material+Management+Plan&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 - Chemical Stabilization of Lead in Small Arms Firing Range Soils AN - 19442357; 7173687 AB - The U.S. military operates Small Arms Firing Ranges (SAFRs) at various locations in and outside the United States. The ranges are used for munitions training for military personnel. Because the ranges have been in operation for a number of years, the soils at SAFRs are contaminated with spent munitions, lead bullets, and other metal contaminants. Although SAFR projectiles contain primarily lead, copper, and antimony, lead is by far the most toxic component. As a consequence of lead-contaminated soils and the distinctive site topographies found at SAFRs, the potential for lead migration that poses risks to the environment exists. Remediation efforts are needed to mitigate lead mobility and availability. Numerous studies have been conducted on reducing the impact of lead contaminants in the environment. This study tests chemical materials for lead stabilization that are economical and readily adaptable to field application at SAFRs. The study evaluates the effectiveness of iron and phosphate chemicals as in situ treatments for reducing lead mobility at SAFRs. Two leaching tests were developed. One test evaluated treatment effectiveness during leaching at the natural soil pH, and the second leach test was conducted at a lower, acidic, pH to estimate the long-term effects of lead leaching at SAFRs. The study showed that phosphate amendments were more effective than iron amendments in stabilizing lead in SAFR soils. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Tardy, BA AU - Larson, S L AU - Bricka, R M Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - September 2003 KW - shooting ranges KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Leaching KW - Bioremediation KW - Mobility KW - Soil KW - USA KW - Phosphates KW - Economics KW - Antimony KW - Military KW - Iron KW - pH KW - Topography KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19442357?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=Tardy%2C+BA%3BLarson%2C+S+L%3BBricka%2C+R+M&rft.aulast=Tardy&rft.aufirst=BA&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Chemical+Stabilization+of+Lead+in+Small+Arms+Firing+Range+Soils&rft.title=Chemical+Stabilization+of+Lead+in+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 - 2016-05-27 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Lime Treatment of 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene Contaminated Soils: Proof of Concept Study AN - 19441578; 7173652 AB - Many active and formerly used Federal facilities contain areas where surface and subsurface unsaturated zone soils are contaminated with explosives. Currently there is no in situ treatment for stabilization, isolation, or remediation of soils impacted by military operations or manufacturing in support of military operations. The objective of the present work was to evaluate in situ lime treatment of TNT in soil. Bench scale studies were conducted using explosives-contaminated soil to determine the impact of mixing regimes and soil moisture content on TNT degradation using lime treatment. Various amounts of mixing and moisture were applied to replicate systems and analyzed for residual TNT and transformation products over time. Based on observations from the initial study, a follow-on bench scale experiment was conducted to assess the long-term rate and extent of TNT degradation using topical lime application. Results indicated that moderate lime application, consistent with agricultural standards, was sufficient for sustained treatment applications and 25 to 30 percent moisture content optimized TNT degradation kinetics. The present work clearly demonstrated that TNT could be degraded from contaminated soil by treatment with hydroxide ions in aqueous solution and by topical application of commercial grade lime in a static or mixed system. By assessing the effects of parameters critical to successful technology transfer, this effort provides an innovative technique for preventing the migration of surface and near surface soil contamination by TNT, which acts as a source zone for groundwater contamination on DoD testing and training ranges. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Hansen, L D AU - Larson, S L AU - Davis, J L AU - Cullinane, J M AU - Nestler, C C AU - Felt Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - September 2003 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Ions KW - Bioremediation KW - Kinetics KW - Groundwater pollution KW - Soil contamination KW - Explosives KW - Soil moisture KW - Military KW - 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene KW - Lime KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19441578?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=Hansen%2C+L+D%3BLarson%2C+S+L%3BDavis%2C+J+L%3BCullinane%2C+J+M%3BNestler%2C+C+C%3BFelt&rft.aulast=Hansen&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Lime+Treatment+of+2%2C4%2C6-Trinitrotoluene+Contaminated+Soils%3A+Proof+of+Concept+Study&rft.title=Lime+Treatment+of+2%2C4%2C6-Trinitrotoluene+Contaminated+Soils%3A+Proof+of+Concept+Study&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 - Possible Impact of Lake Seminole Hydrilla by the Introduced Leaf-Mining Fly Hydrellia pakistanae AN - 19441552; 7173651 AB - Hydrellia pakistanae, a biological control agent of hydrilla, was first introduced into Lake Seminole in 1990. Impact by this species remained low until 1998 when large numbers of individuals and associated impact, as well as increases in native plant diversity, were observed in several locations. In 1999,large-scale reductions in hydrilla were observed throughout many areas of the lake. These changes were correlated with changes in insect numbers where large increases in fly populations were correlated with decreases in tuber numbers and increases in species richness. While insect numbers were reduced in 2000, significant decreases in biomass and increases in native plant diversity were observed when numbers of immatures and/or feeding damage were high. While the evidence presented herein indicates that the flies played a major role in the hydrilla decline on Lake Seminole, other factors may have contributed to the observed reductions. This includes such obvious changes as decreases in lake levels brought on by drought that may have increased light penetration in shallower areas, thus allowing for increased growth of natives. More likely, a complex of factors, including H. pakistanae feeding damage, contributed to the observed changes in hydrilla status on Lake Seminole. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Grodowitz, MJ AU - Cofrancesco, A F AU - Stewart, R M AU - Madsen, J AU - Morgan, D Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - September 2003 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Biological control KW - Species Diversity KW - Drought KW - Freshwater KW - Water levels KW - Lakes KW - Aquatic Macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae) KW - Tubers KW - Droughts KW - Aquatic insects KW - Species richness KW - Damage KW - Feeding KW - Laboratories KW - USA, Georgia, Seminole L. KW - Light Penetration KW - Environmental impact KW - Hydrellia pakistanae KW - Biomass KW - Insects KW - Ecosystem disturbance KW - Freshwater weeds KW - Hydrellia KW - Hydrilla KW - Species diversity KW - Light penetration KW - Waterways KW - A 01370:Biological Control KW - SW 6010:Structures 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/19441552?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=Grodowitz%2C+MJ%3BCofrancesco%2C+A+F%3BStewart%2C+R+M%3BMadsen%2C+J%3BMorgan%2C+D&rft.aulast=Grodowitz&rft.aufirst=MJ&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Possible+Impact+of+Lake+Seminole+Hydrilla+by+the+Introduced+Leaf-Mining+Fly+Hydrellia+pakistanae&rft.title=Possible+Impact+of+Lake+Seminole+Hydrilla+by+the+Introduced+Leaf-Mining+Fly+Hydrellia+pakistanae&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 - Response of Wild Rice to Selected Aquatic Herbicides AN - 19440643; 7173653 AB - The invasion of exotic plants such as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) has contributed to the decline and displacement of native wild rice (Zizania aquatica L.) populations in many U.S. water bodies. Wild rice is a popular food source for both man and animal and provides important habitat for waterfowl, invertebrates, and fish. Herbicides can be successfully used to manage invasive weeds such as Eurasian watermilfoil; however, the potential impacts of such chemical management techniques on native plants (including wild rice) are not well documented. This outdoor tank study was conducted to examine the effects of several aquatic herbicides on the growth and survival of wild rice and to determine whether nontarget herbicide efficacy is influenced by wild rice growth stage. Aquatic formulations of the herbicides diquat, endothall, fluridone, and 2,4-D were applied at varying rates and contact times to three growth stages of wild rice. Results showed that degree of herbicide injury varied with plant growth stage. Wild rice treated at younger growth stages (early tillering or seedling stages) was more sensitive to chemical treatment than plants treated at later stages of development. Regardless of product or rate, herbicide treatment did not affect wild rice plants when applied at the mature growth stage (late tillering and flowering). Of the herbicides evaluated, wild rice was most sensitive to 2,4-D. Rates as low as 1 mg 2,4-D L super(-1) significantly inhibited tiller, seedhead, and dry weight biomass production in young wild rice. Dry weight of young wild rice was also reduced following exposure to endothall, diquat, and fluridone; however, seedhead and tiller production was not influenced by these products. The results of this study suggest that wild rice is most resistant to herbicides applied to the water column when plants are mature or in the late flowering stages of development. Coordinating chemical applications for Eurasian watermilfoil control with resistant growth stages of wild rice will minimize herbicide injury to this desirable native plant species. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Nelson, L S AU - Getsinger, K D AU - Owens, C S Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - September 2003 KW - Pollution Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Flowering KW - Rice KW - water bodies KW - Injuries KW - flowering KW - Myriophyllum KW - Stages KW - Freshwater KW - Weight KW - plant growth KW - 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid KW - Growth rate KW - Diquat KW - Plant Growth KW - Myriophyllum spicatum KW - Growth Stages KW - Aquatic plants KW - Oryza sativa KW - Chemical treatment KW - Herbicides KW - Habitat KW - Freshwater weeds KW - Zizania aquatica KW - USA KW - Plant control KW - waterfowl KW - water column KW - Seedlings KW - Plant growth KW - weeds KW - survival KW - Introduced species KW - Pollution control KW - P 2000:FRESHWATER POLLUTION KW - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19440643?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=Nelson%2C+L+S%3BGetsinger%2C+K+D%3BOwens%2C+C+S&rft.aulast=Nelson&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Response+of+Wild+Rice+to+Selected+Aquatic+Herbicides&rft.title=Response+of+Wild+Rice+to+Selected+Aquatic+Herbicides&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 - Topical Lime Treatment for Containment of Source Zone Energetics Contamination AN - 19440413; 7173650 AB - Energetic compounds, such as 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), and their degradation products can act as a source of contamination for soil on Department of Defense testing and training ranges. Base hydrolysis degrades nitroaromatics and nitramines, and the potential effectiveness of lime to induce this reaction has been demonstrated at the laboratory scale. The objective of this research was to further examine both basic and applied aspects of alkaline application as an inexpensive and effective means of reducing source-zone contamination on military ranges. Bench-scale microcosms were used to examine basic conditions that could affect the alkaline hydrolysis reaction, such as soil organic matter content, lime concentration, soil type, and contamination type. Results from experiments using soil from a variety of ammunition production facilities and training ranges, in general, support the use of explosive contaminant treatment by alkaline material in well-mixed systems. RDX in crystalline form was more resistant to treatment, possibly due to limitations associated with the dissolution of the RDX from the crystal to the aqueous phase. Larger-scale experiments, conducted in vessels packed with approximately 55 kg of soil, were used to investigate topical versus well-mixed applications of three alkaline materials (hydrated lime, quicklime, and Class C fly ash). TNT, RDX, and HMX in the mixed system were removed quickly from both the leachate and soil. However, results from experiments with topical applications of alkali material indicated that the aqueous transport of hydroxide ion was not sufficient to overcome the buffering capacity of the soil. Consequently, the soil pH was not raised to the extent necessary for alkaline treatment of explosive compounds. This result is fundamentally related to the CEC properties of the soil and is consequently considered a soil specific (and therefore site specific) result. Topical application of alkali material may still be a viable treatment technique by taking advantage of circumstances unique to training ranges. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Brooks, M C AU - Davis, J L AU - Larson, S L AU - Felt AU - Nestler, C C Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - September 2003 KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - soil types KW - Laboratory testing KW - Training KW - Fly ash KW - Soil contamination KW - Hydrolysis KW - Lime KW - microcosms KW - Explosives KW - Military KW - Containment KW - Leachates KW - pH KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19440413?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=Brooks%2C+M+C%3BDavis%2C+J+L%3BLarson%2C+S+L%3BFelt%3BNestler%2C+C+C&rft.aulast=Brooks&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Topical+Lime+Treatment+for+Containment+of+Source+Zone+Energetics+Contamination&rft.title=Topical+Lime+Treatment+for+Containment+of+Source+Zone+Energetics+Contamination&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 - Propagation of a Long-Lived and Threatened Prairie Plant, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii AN - 18829521; 5711685 AB - Willamette Valley upland prairie in western Oregon, U.S.A. has been severely degraded and fragmented in the past 150 years after European settlement, resulting in vast population reductions of endemic species. Icaricia icarioides fenderi (Fender's blue butterfly) and Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid's lupine) are federally listed as Endangered and Threatened Species, respectively. Both are Willamette Valley upland prairie endemics, and Kincaid's lupine is the primary host plant for the Fender's blue butterfly. Attempts to grow Kincaid's lupine have been partially successful in a greenhouse situation; however, propagating plants from field-sown seed can be tenuous and plant establishment is unpredictable. Kincaid's lupine seeds were planted in the fall 1997 at two different upland prairie sites, and the cohort was followed through the summer 2000. Based on cohort tables the most vulnerable life stages to mortality are the germinant stage and the first growing year. Mechanical scarification of Kincaid's lupine seeds yielded no significant differences in survivorship, maternal function, plant size, and the percentage of seeds germinated compared with unscarified seeds. Differential seed source performance detected at one planting site suggests that underlying differences in population genetics may affect Kincaid's lupine vigor, fitness, and establishment. Future restoration projects for Kincaid's lupine should focus on upland prairie sites with naturally occurring lupine populations because local ecological conditions are favorable for lupine establishment. Moreover, the addition of new individuals to small Kincaid's lupine colonies will buffer against the effects of inbreeding depression and increase the site carrying capacity for Fender's blue butterfly. JF - Restoration Ecology AU - Severns, P M AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Willamette Valley Projects, P.O. Box 429, Lowell, OR 97452, U.S.A., severnsp@science.oregonstate.edu Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - Sep 2003 SP - 334 EP - 342 PB - Blackwell Science Ltd VL - 11 IS - 3 SN - 1061-2971, 1061-2971 KW - Ecology Abstracts KW - D 04715:Reclamation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18829521?accountid=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=Restoration+Ecology&rft.atitle=Propagation+of+a+Long-Lived+and+Threatened+Prairie+Plant%2C+Lupinus+sulphureus+ssp.+kincaidii&rft.au=Severns%2C+P+M&rft.aulast=Severns&rft.aufirst=P&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=334&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Restoration+Ecology&rft.issn=10612971&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046%2Fj.1526-100X.2003.00175.x LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2006-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-13 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.2003.00175.x ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Study of environmental impact and natural attenuation of explosives AN - 16169761; 5909718 AB - Manufacturing and loading, assembling packaging, and waste disposal of explosives have resulted in contamination of soil and groundwater at several sites in USA. This disposed waste predominantly consisted of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) and 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-hexahydrotdazine (RDX). Several processes of biotic and abiotic transformation, microbial degradation, and immobilization by chemical reactions between contaminants and organic matter or clays affecting the attenuation of TNT and RDX. The objective of this project has been to demonstrate natural attenuation of explosives at the selected sites. Groundwater monitoring procedures were optimized to generate reliable trends in explosives concentrations over time. Batch and column partitioning studies were used to evaluate the significance of site capacity on ultimate fate and transport of the explosives. Both biomarker and stable isotope techniques were investigated for use as monitoring tools. The groundwater modeling system was used for contaminant plume definition and predictions of future contaminant extent. Results demonstrated declining concentrations of explosives in groundwater over the two-year monitoring period. Contaminant mass declined and the groundwater model predicted a shrinking plume in a 20-year simulation. Biomarkers demonstrated the microbial degradation potential of RDX and TNT in aquifer soils and provided an estimate of degradation rates. Use of stable isotope ratios of nitrogen in TNT extracted from groundwater was a promising indicator of attenuation. Results demonstrated that natural attenuation is a viable option, which should be among the options considered for remediation of explosives contaminated sites. Natural attenuation of contaminants has provided a very cost-effective alternative remediation for the sites. JF - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. AU - Zakikhani, M AU - Harrelson, D W AU - Pennington, J C AU - Brannon, J M AU - Corcoran, M K AU - Clark, J AU - Sniffen, WA Y1 - 2003/09// PY - 2003 DA - Sep 2003 SP - 1 EP - 119 PB - UNIVERSITY OF THE AEGEAN KW - 1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-hexahydrotdazine KW - 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene KW - natural attenuation KW - Pollution Abstracts KW - Remediation KW - Economics KW - Groundwater pollution KW - Waste disposal KW - Soil contamination KW - Explosives KW - P 5000:LAND POLLUTION UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16169761?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=Zakikhani%2C+M%3BHarrelson%2C+D+W%3BPennington%2C+J+C%3BBrannon%2C+J+M%3BCorcoran%2C+M+K%3BClark%2C+J%3BSniffen%2C+WA&rft.aulast=Zakikhani&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2003-09-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=119&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Study+of+environmental+impact+and+natural+attenuation+of+explosives&rft.title=Study+of+environmental+impact+and+natural+attenuation+of+explosives&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2004-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FAIRFIELD TO DUPUYER CORRIDOR STUDY (STPP 3-2(27)28; CONTROL NO. 4051) IN TETON AND PONDERA COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 36400976; 10398 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction, widening, and realignment of a 46.2-mile section of US 89, extending from Fairfield in Teton County to Dupuyer in Pondera County, Montana is proposed. US 89 runs roughly parallel to Interstate 15 within the study corridor and serves as a more scenic alternative route between Great Falls and Glacier National Park. The corridor provides access to Yellowstone National Park on the south and to Glacier National Park and the Canadian border on the north. The existing facility is characterized by inadequate passing opportunities, narrow shoulders, sharp curves, and poor operational accommodation of the mix of recreational vehicles, trucks, and passenger vehicles. The accident rate on US 89 is nearly double that of the statewide average for similar facilities. The project would widen the highway to include paved shoulders and improve horizontal and vertical curves to meet current design standards. Existing bridges, culverts, and stockpasses would be replaced. Fourteen alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative and a variety of alignment alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Throughout a most of the project, only two alignment alternatives would be considered. The preferred alternative would provide a pavement width of 36 feet, including two 12-foot-wide driving lanes flanked by six-foot shoulders. Most improvements would lie within the existing alignment POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide updated design features and improved safety and operational efficiency within the corridor and enhance travel for recreational users of the facility. An acceptable level of service would be provided within the corridor through the year 2023. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way would be required throughout the corridor, with the exception of portions of the project passing through Freezout Lake Wildlife Management Area and the urban sections in Choteau and Bynum; the project would require 630.57 acres of new rights-of-way. One sensitive noise receptor would experience noise levels in excess of federal standards. Approximately 29.9 acres of wetlands would be affected, and the project would traverse the floodplains associated with Spring Creek and Muddy Creek. The project could affect foraging and bedding habitat of the federally protected grizzly bear. Hazardous waste sties could be encountered during construction. 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 03-0089D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030405, 245 pages, August 29, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MT-EIS-02-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Montana KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36400976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FAIRFIELD+TO+DUPUYER+CORRIDOR+STUDY+%28STPP+3-2%2827%2928%3B+CONTROL+NO.+4051%29+IN+TETON+AND+PONDERA+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=FAIRFIELD+TO+DUPUYER+CORRIDOR+STUDY+%28STPP+3-2%2827%2928%3B+CONTROL+NO.+4051%29+IN+TETON+AND+PONDERA+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Helena, Montana; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. AN - 36374487; 10393-030400_0003 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 Monroe, 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 1.97-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. Three build alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 2.45 miles to 2.61 miles. Cost estimates for the alternatives range from $12.5 million to $15.2 million. 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 35 to 55 residences, 10.4 to 16.4 acres of wetlands, 1.4 to two acres of Bayou Desiard, 0.1 to 0.2 acre of stream channel, three to 9.7 acres of grassland,, 21.7 to 28.3 acres of floodplain, and 15.9 to 32.4 acres of woodland. One cemetery could be affected. The project would impact 15.9 to 32.4 acres of habitat for Louisiana black bear, a federally protected species. One railroad crossing and two to three transmission line crossings would be required, as would two to three gas lines, two to three gas wells, two to five sewer lines, three to four water lines, and one to two potential hazardous waste sites. A portion of one archaeological resource site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be affected. 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). JF - EPA number: 030400, pages, August 28, 2003 PY - 2003 EP - ages, August 28 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LSX-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries 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/36374487?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&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; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. AN - 36372269; 10393-030400_0004 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 Monroe, 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 1.97-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. Three build alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 2.45 miles to 2.61 miles. Cost estimates for the alternatives range from $12.5 million to $15.2 million. 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 35 to 55 residences, 10.4 to 16.4 acres of wetlands, 1.4 to two acres of Bayou Desiard, 0.1 to 0.2 acre of stream channel, three to 9.7 acres of grassland,, 21.7 to 28.3 acres of floodplain, and 15.9 to 32.4 acres of woodland. One cemetery could be affected. The project would impact 15.9 to 32.4 acres of habitat for Louisiana black bear, a federally protected species. One railroad crossing and two to three transmission line crossings would be required, as would two to three gas lines, two to three gas wells, two to five sewer lines, three to four water lines, and one to two potential hazardous waste sites. A portion of one archaeological resource site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be affected. 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). JF - EPA number: 030400, pages, August 28, 2003 PY - 2003 EP - ages, August 28 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LSX-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries 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/36372269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&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; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. AN - 36370899; 10393-030400_0002 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 Monroe, 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 1.97-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. Three build alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 2.45 miles to 2.61 miles. Cost estimates for the alternatives range from $12.5 million to $15.2 million. 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 35 to 55 residences, 10.4 to 16.4 acres of wetlands, 1.4 to two acres of Bayou Desiard, 0.1 to 0.2 acre of stream channel, three to 9.7 acres of grassland,, 21.7 to 28.3 acres of floodplain, and 15.9 to 32.4 acres of woodland. One cemetery could be affected. The project would impact 15.9 to 32.4 acres of habitat for Louisiana black bear, a federally protected species. One railroad crossing and two to three transmission line crossings would be required, as would two to three gas lines, two to three gas wells, two to five sewer lines, three to four water lines, and one to two potential hazardous waste sites. A portion of one archaeological resource site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be affected. 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). JF - EPA number: 030400, pages, August 28, 2003 PY - 2003 EP - ages, August 28 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LSX-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries 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/36370899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&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; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. AN - 36367799; 10393-030400_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 Monroe, 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 1.97-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. Three build alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 2.45 miles to 2.61 miles. Cost estimates for the alternatives range from $12.5 million to $15.2 million. 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 35 to 55 residences, 10.4 to 16.4 acres of wetlands, 1.4 to two acres of Bayou Desiard, 0.1 to 0.2 acre of stream channel, three to 9.7 acres of grassland,, 21.7 to 28.3 acres of floodplain, and 15.9 to 32.4 acres of woodland. One cemetery could be affected. The project would impact 15.9 to 32.4 acres of habitat for Louisiana black bear, a federally protected species. One railroad crossing and two to three transmission line crossings would be required, as would two to three gas lines, two to three gas wells, two to five sewer lines, three to four water lines, and one to two potential hazardous waste sites. A portion of one archaeological resource site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be affected. 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). JF - EPA number: 030400, pages, August 28, 2003 PY - 2003 EP - ages, August 28 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LSX-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries 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/36367799?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&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; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KANSAS LANE CONNECTOR, MONROE, LOUISIANA. AN - 16367753; 10393 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 Monroe, 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 1.97-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. Three build alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. The build alternatives range in length from 2.45 miles to 2.61 miles. Cost estimates for the alternatives range from $12.5 million to $15.2 million. 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 35 to 55 residences, 10.4 to 16.4 acres of wetlands, 1.4 to two acres of Bayou Desiard, 0.1 to 0.2 acre of stream channel, three to 9.7 acres of grassland,, 21.7 to 28.3 acres of floodplain, and 15.9 to 32.4 acres of woodland. One cemetery could be affected. The project would impact 15.9 to 32.4 acres of habitat for Louisiana black bear, a federally protected species. One railroad crossing and two to three transmission line crossings would be required, as would two to three gas lines, two to three gas wells, two to five sewer lines, three to four water lines, and one to two potential hazardous waste sites. A portion of one archaeological resource site eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places could be affected. 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). JF - EPA number: 030400, pages, August 28, 2003 PY - 2003 EP - ages, August 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LSX-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cemeteries 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/16367753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=ages&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; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT ROYAL OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 36428001; 10392 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of a ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for material dredged from channels within Pot Royal, South Carolina is proposed. Federal waterways at Port Royal Harbor include a 24-foot-deep channel in the Beaufort River and Battery Creek, a 27-foot-deep turning basin at the head of Battery Creek, and a 27-foot-deep entrance channel. The entrance channel to Port Royal shoals more frequently than the Beaufort River/Battery Creek channel. The entrance channel has been dredged nine times between 1980 and 2003. The turning basing and Battery Creek have been dredged twice since 1956. After a period of decline, the port has experience an increase in freight tonnage throughput. Expected tonnage of clay, feldspar, and aggregate in the future would require the port to operate at full capacity. There is a lack of appropriate dredged material disposal sites in the Port Royal area. Most nearby land is either privately owned or protected marshland. The proposed 1.5-nautical-square-mile ODMDS lies in waters with an average depth of 36 feet. Sediments at the selected site are compatible with sediments from the entrance channel, the materials most likely to be disposed at the site. In addition to the proposed ODMDS, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the ODMDS would provide for an environmentally appropriate, economically feasible of disposing of materials dredged for maintenance of the entrance and other channels within the port, thereby helping to maintain the viability of the port for future operations. Port operations would provide for local employment and otherwise boost the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would result in the destruction of benthic organisms and the temporary release of sediments into the water column. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030399, 102 pages, August 26, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Gravel KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sand KW - Site Planning KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - South Carolina 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/36428001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+ROYAL+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+DESIGNATION%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=PORT+ROYAL+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+DESIGNATION%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT ROYAL OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PORT ROYAL OCEAN DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE DESIGNATION, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 36383757; 10392-030399_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The designation of a ocean dredged material disposal site (ODMDS) for material dredged from channels within Pot Royal, South Carolina is proposed. Federal waterways at Port Royal Harbor include a 24-foot-deep channel in the Beaufort River and Battery Creek, a 27-foot-deep turning basin at the head of Battery Creek, and a 27-foot-deep entrance channel. The entrance channel to Port Royal shoals more frequently than the Beaufort River/Battery Creek channel. The entrance channel has been dredged nine times between 1980 and 2003. The turning basing and Battery Creek have been dredged twice since 1956. After a period of decline, the port has experience an increase in freight tonnage throughput. Expected tonnage of clay, feldspar, and aggregate in the future would require the port to operate at full capacity. There is a lack of appropriate dredged material disposal sites in the Port Royal area. Most nearby land is either privately owned or protected marshland. The proposed 1.5-nautical-square-mile ODMDS lies in waters with an average depth of 36 feet. Sediments at the selected site are compatible with sediments from the entrance channel, the materials most likely to be disposed at the site. In addition to the proposed ODMDS, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Designation of the ODMDS would provide for an environmentally appropriate, economically feasible of disposing of materials dredged for maintenance of the entrance and other channels within the port, thereby helping to maintain the viability of the port for future operations. Port operations would provide for local employment and otherwise boost the local and regional economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would result in the destruction of benthic organisms and the temporary release of sediments into the water column. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030399, 102 pages, August 26, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Gravel KW - Harbors KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Sand KW - Site Planning KW - Waterways KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - South Carolina 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/36383757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+ROYAL+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+DESIGNATION%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=PORT+ROYAL+OCEAN+DREDGED+MATERIAL+DISPOSAL+SITE+DESIGNATION%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 26, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36351894; 10391-030398_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 19 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36351764; 10391-030398_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351764?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 14 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36351667; 10391-030398_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 18 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36351643; 10391-030398_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351643?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 12 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36351589; 10391-030398_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 10 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36351511; 10391-030398_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36351511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36350621; 10391-030398_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36350524; 10391-030398_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 15 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36350262; 10391-030398_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349819; 10391-030398_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349819?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 28 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349763; 10391-030398_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349763?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 13 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349753; 10391-030398_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 25 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349687; 10391-030398_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 27 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349680; 10391-030398_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349680?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 23 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349612; 10391-030398_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 21 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349396; 10391-030398_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 9 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349322; 10391-030398_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 16 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349313; 10391-030398_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349233; 10391-030398_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349227; 10391-030398_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 24 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36349011; 10391-030398_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 22 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36348911; 10391-030398_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348911?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 11 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36348736; 10391-030398_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36348546; 10391-030398_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 28] T2 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 36348444; 10391-030398_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FLORIDA HIGH-SPEED RAIL, TAMPA TO ORLANDO, HILLSBOROUGH, ORANGE, OSCEOLA, AND POLK COUNTIES, FLORIDA. AN - 16351965; 10391 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a high-speed rail connection between Tampa and Orlando, Florida are proposed. The fixed-guideway monorail or magnetic levitation system would be capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour. The rail line would extend from the downtown area of Tampa to Orlando International Airport (OIA). Presently, passenger movements in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided by highway. Increasing population, employment, and tourism rates have elevated travel demand above the capacity of the existing road system. This draft EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, two technology alternatives, and four alignment alternatives for each technology. Regarding technology alternatives, Fluor Bombardier (FB) would provide a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, known as "Jet Train". The Jet Train would use passenger equipment similar to Amtrak's Acela Express trains presently operating between the District of Columbia and Boston, Massachusetts. FB's system would have a top speed of 125 mph, provide for 14 round trips per day, include eight shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 292 passengers. The Global Rail Consortium (Global) would provide an electric powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered by an overhead catenary system similar to that used on the line between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global system would employ the French-designed TGV Atlantique train sets. Global's system would have a top speed of 160 mph, provide for 16 round trips per day, include 17 shuttle trips between OIA and Disney land, and offer a seating capacity of 250 passengers. Estimated costs of the alternative system /alignments alternatives range from $2.0 billion to $2.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The rail system would reduce vehicular traffic congestion on arterial roads connecting the five largest urban areas within the state and provide an alternative to vehicular use to the traveling public. This enhanced passenger mobility would provide an essential component in the sustained growth of the region and improve the quality of life of the region's residents significantly. The reduction of congestion on parallel highways would significantly enhance regional air quality. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of up to three residences, three to 23 businesses, 24.4 to 40 acres of wetlands, 54.5 to 61 acres of floodplain, and 6.5 to 9.5 acres of floodway. One recreational facility and five to seven historic sites protected by federal jurisdiction would be affected. The project would also affect eight to 12 schools, five to 10 community facilities, five to seven parks, four to six cemeteries, and 12 to 15 churches. Noise generated by rail operations would affect five to 105 residences and, possibly, one or two institutional receptor sites. Vibration impacts would affect one to 44 residences and could affect one public site. Habitat for nine to 16 federally protected species would be affected. Construction activities would disturb up to seven petroleum sites and four to 12 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.), 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). JF - EPA number: 030398, 361 pages and maps, August 25, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Airports KW - Cemeteries KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroad Structures KW - Railroads KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreation Resources KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16351965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=FLORIDA+HIGH-SPEED+RAIL%2C+TAMPA+TO+ORLANDO%2C+HILLSBOROUGH%2C+ORANGE%2C+OSCEOLA%2C+AND+POLK+COUNTIES%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENSBORO-HIGH POINT ROAD (SR 1486-SR 4121) IMPROVEMENTS, FROM US 311 (I-74) TO HILLTOP ROAD (SR 1424), GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (RE-EVALUATION OF A 1992 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 15228953; 10382 AB - PURPOSE: The provision of a multilane highway facility from the interchange of Greensboro Road (State Route (SR) 1486) and US 311 (Interstate 74 (I-74)) to the six-lane portion of existing High Point Road (SR 4121) at Hilltop Road (SR 1424) in southwest Guilford County, North Carolina is proposed. The county population grew by 73,617 (21.2 percent) between 1990 and 2000. The study area encompasses portions of northeast High Point, the town of Jamestown, and portions of southwest Greensboro. The road system in this area is inadequate to meet the needs of the growing population. Portions of the improved facility would follow existing Greensboro Road and High Point Road, while other portions would be constructed on new alignment. This draft EIS is a re-evaluation of a 1992 draft EIS titled "US 29A/US 70A (High Point Road), From US 311 Bypass to the Greensboro Western Urban Loop Near Hilltop Road, Guilford County, North Carolina". This draft EIS addresses four build alignment alternatives and a No-Build Alternative as well as a transportation system management /public transportation alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new facility, which would serve as a primary arterial and major thoroughfare between High Point and Greensboro, would support the growth in population and employment along both sides of the corridor and improve the safety of local and through travel in the area by providing a bypass of downtown Jamestown. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 14.4 acres of farmland, 55 to 76 residences, including five to 10 minority-owned and/or -occupied residences, 30 to 48 businesses, including three to four minority-owned businesses, and 248.9 to 310.5 acres of wildlife habitat, including forest, transitional, agricultural, wetland, and open water habitat. One cemetery containing 20 graves would be affected, and noise levels would impact two churches. As many as five historic sites would be affected. The project would impact 3,182 to 4,079 linear feet of stream channel. Traffic-generated noise would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 61 to 82 sensitive receptor sites. Construction workers would encounter 34 to 43 sites containing hazardous materials. 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 1992 draft EIS, see 92-0217D, Volume 16, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030389, 342 pages and maps, CD-ROM, August 21, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Cemeteries KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Minorities KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina 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/15228953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREENSBORO-HIGH+POINT+ROAD+%28SR+1486-SR+4121%29+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+FROM+US+311+%28I-74%29+TO+HILLTOP+ROAD+%28SR+1424%29%2C+GUILFORD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28RE-EVALUATION+OF+A+1992+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=GREENSBORO-HIGH+POINT+ROAD+%28SR+1486-SR+4121%29+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+FROM+US+311+%28I-74%29+TO+HILLTOP+ROAD+%28SR+1424%29%2C+GUILFORD+COUNTY%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA+%28RE-EVALUATION+OF+A+1992+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 21, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER MUD RIVER AT MILTON, CABELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 36415986; 10367 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of flood damage reduction measures for the residents along the Lower Mud River in the city of Milton, Cabell County, West Virginia is proposed. Milton lies approximately 19 miles upstream of the confluence of the Mud River and the Guyandotte River. The project study area encompasses two miles of the Mud River corridor and the major tributaries of Johns ranch and Newmans Branch. In March 1997, Milton experienced a 27-year flood of record which caused over $23 million in damage. A 100-year event would result in significant impacts to 651 structures and damages of $47 million. Additional damages would be expected to affect public infrastructure and millions of dollars would be spent in cleaning up and repairing the damage from flooding. Three final alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Indicates that this is a supplement, but I find nothing else in my database} Action Alternative Plan B would provide for an earthen levee protecting most of Milton, including the business district, from flooding by the 250-year event. The levee would extend approximately 2,000 feet south and west from the eastern edge of Milton at US 60 to cross the Mud River, and proceed west for another 2,000 feet to cross the Mud River again before reaching the Mud River Road bridge, where it would continue west for 2,200 feet along the north river bank to Newmans Branch and an additional 2,100 feet along the river bank to high ground south of US 60 near Abbot Road junction. Levee embankment materials would be provided by materials taken during alteration of the Mud River channel and materials taken from a borrow site south of the channel. Ancillary facilities would include a pump station and 13 acres of interior ponding between the existing channel and the new levee embankment. Action Alternative Plan D would provide for an earthen levee protecting a substantial portion of Milton, including most of the main business district, from flooding resulting from a 20-year event. The levee would begin just west of Johns Branch and south of US 60, proceed generally west for 2,700 feet to the Mud River Road bridge, turn west for 4,000 feet crossing Newmans Branch to high ground south of US 60 near Abbot Road junction. Levee embankment materials would be taken from a nearby borrow site. Two pumping stations would be installed for internal drainage. Initial costs of plans B and D are estimated at $38.7 million and $27.6 million, respectively, and the respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 1.3 and 1.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either alternative would provide some measure of flood protection for the city of Milton, with Plan B providing full protection against the largest foreeseable flood event. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan B would impact 4,084 feet of existing channel upstream of the Mud River Road bridge and 172 acres of land, requiring the displacement of one business and six residences. Plan D would impact 119 acres of land, requiring the displacement of six businesses and 29 residences. Affected land uses would include commercial land, forested land, institutional land, maintained land, open vegetated land, residential land, urban/industrial land, and wetlands. Either alternative would result in visual impacts from the levee and ancillary project facilities. Drainage patterns in the area would be altered significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 99-662, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030372, 249 pages, August 15, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Borrow Pits KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mud River KW - West Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 99-662, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36415986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+MUD+RIVER+AT+MILTON%2C+CABELL+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=LOWER+MUD+RIVER+AT+MILTON%2C+CABELL+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Huntington, West Virginia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 15, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LIBERTY MEMORIAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA (PROJECT SU-1-094(078)920). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - LIBERTY MEMORIAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA (PROJECT SU-1-094(078)920). AN - 36374787; 10378-030384_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or reconstruction of the Liberty Memorial Bridge connecting Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota is proposed. The bridge, which spans the Missouri River, constitutes a key crossing on the Interstate 94 (I-94) Business Loop required to maintain connectivity between the two cities. The bridge suffers from poor and deteriorating structural components and does not provide the capacity to efficiently accommodate future traffic demands. The existing bridge is a two-lane, bi-directional facility. The project termini extend from the intersection with Fraine Barracks Road on the east of the Memorial Bridge and the I-94 interchange with the Bismarck Expressway on the west end of the bridge. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the March 2003 draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve rehabilitation of the existing bridge. Alternative 2A or 2B would result in the construction of a new four-lane bridge on a southern or northern alignment, respectively. Alternatives 3A or 3B would involve the construction of a new two-lane bridge on a southern or northern alignment, respectively. All six alternatives are located within a similar corridor. Alternative 2A is identified as the preferred alternative in this final EIS. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $37 million to $57 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any action alternative would improve this critical link between Bismarck and Mandan. Alternative 1 would prevent excessive damage to a visually important structure that has been placed in the National Register of Historic Places. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration or demolition of the bridge would affect the historic structure. Alternative 1 would not efficiently accommodate future traffic demands, retain less than desirable structural geometrics and pedestrian facilities, and require closure of the bridge for 22 months. All build alternatives would have some potential for disturbing threatened and endangered species, increasing noise levels during the construction phase, and degrading water quality in the Missouri River. Alternatives 2A, 3A, 2B, or 3B would require the relocation of one home. 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 03-0338D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030384, 252 pages, August 15, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ND-EIS-02-02-F KW - Bridges KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - North Dakota 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/36374787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LIBERTY+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+BISMARCK%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28PROJECT+SU-1-094%28078%29920%29.&rft.title=LIBERTY+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+BISMARCK%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28PROJECT+SU-1-094%28078%29920%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 15, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LIBERTY MEMORIAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA (PROJECT SU-1-094(078)920). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - LIBERTY MEMORIAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA (PROJECT SU-1-094(078)920). AN - 36372382; 10378-030384_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or reconstruction of the Liberty Memorial Bridge connecting Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota is proposed. The bridge, which spans the Missouri River, constitutes a key crossing on the Interstate 94 (I-94) Business Loop required to maintain connectivity between the two cities. The bridge suffers from poor and deteriorating structural components and does not provide the capacity to efficiently accommodate future traffic demands. The existing bridge is a two-lane, bi-directional facility. The project termini extend from the intersection with Fraine Barracks Road on the east of the Memorial Bridge and the I-94 interchange with the Bismarck Expressway on the west end of the bridge. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the March 2003 draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve rehabilitation of the existing bridge. Alternative 2A or 2B would result in the construction of a new four-lane bridge on a southern or northern alignment, respectively. Alternatives 3A or 3B would involve the construction of a new two-lane bridge on a southern or northern alignment, respectively. All six alternatives are located within a similar corridor. Alternative 2A is identified as the preferred alternative in this final EIS. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $37 million to $57 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any action alternative would improve this critical link between Bismarck and Mandan. Alternative 1 would prevent excessive damage to a visually important structure that has been placed in the National Register of Historic Places. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration or demolition of the bridge would affect the historic structure. Alternative 1 would not efficiently accommodate future traffic demands, retain less than desirable structural geometrics and pedestrian facilities, and require closure of the bridge for 22 months. All build alternatives would have some potential for disturbing threatened and endangered species, increasing noise levels during the construction phase, and degrading water quality in the Missouri River. Alternatives 2A, 3A, 2B, or 3B would require the relocation of one home. 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 03-0338D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030384, 252 pages, August 15, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ND-EIS-02-02-F KW - Bridges KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - North Dakota 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/36372382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LIBERTY+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+BISMARCK%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28PROJECT+SU-1-094%28078%29920%29.&rft.title=LIBERTY+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+BISMARCK%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28PROJECT+SU-1-094%28078%29920%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 15, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER MUD RIVER AT MILTON, CABELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LOWER MUD RIVER AT MILTON, CABELL COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA. AN - 36350236; 10367-030372_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of flood damage reduction measures for the residents along the Lower Mud River in the city of Milton, Cabell County, West Virginia is proposed. Milton lies approximately 19 miles upstream of the confluence of the Mud River and the Guyandotte River. The project study area encompasses two miles of the Mud River corridor and the major tributaries of Johns ranch and Newmans Branch. In March 1997, Milton experienced a 27-year flood of record which caused over $23 million in damage. A 100-year event would result in significant impacts to 651 structures and damages of $47 million. Additional damages would be expected to affect public infrastructure and millions of dollars would be spent in cleaning up and repairing the damage from flooding. Three final alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Indicates that this is a supplement, but I find nothing else in my database} Action Alternative Plan B would provide for an earthen levee protecting most of Milton, including the business district, from flooding by the 250-year event. The levee would extend approximately 2,000 feet south and west from the eastern edge of Milton at US 60 to cross the Mud River, and proceed west for another 2,000 feet to cross the Mud River again before reaching the Mud River Road bridge, where it would continue west for 2,200 feet along the north river bank to Newmans Branch and an additional 2,100 feet along the river bank to high ground south of US 60 near Abbot Road junction. Levee embankment materials would be provided by materials taken during alteration of the Mud River channel and materials taken from a borrow site south of the channel. Ancillary facilities would include a pump station and 13 acres of interior ponding between the existing channel and the new levee embankment. Action Alternative Plan D would provide for an earthen levee protecting a substantial portion of Milton, including most of the main business district, from flooding resulting from a 20-year event. The levee would begin just west of Johns Branch and south of US 60, proceed generally west for 2,700 feet to the Mud River Road bridge, turn west for 4,000 feet crossing Newmans Branch to high ground south of US 60 near Abbot Road junction. Levee embankment materials would be taken from a nearby borrow site. Two pumping stations would be installed for internal drainage. Initial costs of plans B and D are estimated at $38.7 million and $27.6 million, respectively, and the respective benefit-cost ratios are estimated at 1.3 and 1.2. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either alternative would provide some measure of flood protection for the city of Milton, with Plan B providing full protection against the largest foreeseable flood event. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Plan B would impact 4,084 feet of existing channel upstream of the Mud River Road bridge and 172 acres of land, requiring the displacement of one business and six residences. Plan D would impact 119 acres of land, requiring the displacement of six businesses and 29 residences. Affected land uses would include commercial land, forested land, institutional land, maintained land, open vegetated land, residential land, urban/industrial land, and wetlands. Either alternative would result in visual impacts from the levee and ancillary project facilities. Drainage patterns in the area would be altered significantly. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 99-662, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-60), and Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030372, 249 pages, August 15, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Borrow Pits KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Mud River KW - West Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 99-662, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+MUD+RIVER+AT+MILTON%2C+CABELL+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=LOWER+MUD+RIVER+AT+MILTON%2C+CABELL+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Huntington, West Virginia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 15, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LIBERTY MEMORIAL BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA (PROJECT SU-1-094(078)920). AN - 16367530; 10378 AB - PURPOSE: The rehabilitation or reconstruction of the Liberty Memorial Bridge connecting Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota is proposed. The bridge, which spans the Missouri River, constitutes a key crossing on the Interstate 94 (I-94) Business Loop required to maintain connectivity between the two cities. The bridge suffers from poor and deteriorating structural components and does not provide the capacity to efficiently accommodate future traffic demands. The existing bridge is a two-lane, bi-directional facility. The project termini extend from the intersection with Fraine Barracks Road on the east of the Memorial Bridge and the I-94 interchange with the Bismarck Expressway on the west end of the bridge. Six alternatives, including a No-Build Alternative, were considered in the March 2003 draft EIS. Alternative 1 would involve rehabilitation of the existing bridge. Alternative 2A or 2B would result in the construction of a new four-lane bridge on a southern or northern alignment, respectively. Alternatives 3A or 3B would involve the construction of a new two-lane bridge on a southern or northern alignment, respectively. All six alternatives are located within a similar corridor. Alternative 2A is identified as the preferred alternative in this final EIS. Estimated costs of the action alternatives range from $37 million to $57 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Any action alternative would improve this critical link between Bismarck and Mandan. Alternative 1 would prevent excessive damage to a visually important structure that has been placed in the National Register of Historic Places. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alteration or demolition of the bridge would affect the historic structure. Alternative 1 would not efficiently accommodate future traffic demands, retain less than desirable structural geometrics and pedestrian facilities, and require closure of the bridge for 22 months. All build alternatives would have some potential for disturbing threatened and endangered species, increasing noise levels during the construction phase, and degrading water quality in the Missouri River. Alternatives 2A, 3A, 2B, or 3B would require the relocation of one home. 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 03-0338D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030384, 252 pages, August 15, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ND-EIS-02-02-F KW - Bridges KW - Demolition KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - North Dakota 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/16367530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LIBERTY+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+BISMARCK%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28PROJECT+SU-1-094%28078%29920%29.&rft.title=LIBERTY+MEMORIAL+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT%2C+BISMARCK%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA+%28PROJECT+SU-1-094%28078%29920%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bismarck, North Dakota; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 15, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36384978; 10371-030376_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36384978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36381159; 10371-030376_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36380601; 10371-030376_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36380540; 10371-030376_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36380374; 10371-030376_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36380145; 10371-030376_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36380122; 10371-030376_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380122?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 36373231; 10371-030376_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36373231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAVINA ACCESS PROJECT, KETCHIKAN, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 16354742; 10371 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a roadway and bridge to improve public access between the community of Ketichikan on Revillagigedo Island and Gravina Island, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The project would constitute one of 17 federally funded high-priority transportation infrastructure projects in the state of Alaska. Currently, there is no surface transportation link between the islands. Public access is restricted to a ferry that transports vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians across the Tongass Narrows from Ketichikan to the Ketchikan International Airport terminal on Gravina Islands. Nine build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Build alternatives include four bridge alternatives that would cross the Tongass Narrows near the airport, two bridge alternatives that would Penock Island, and three ferry alternatives that would supplement the existing airport ferry service. The terminus locations for each of the alternatives would tie into Tongass Avenue at or near Peninsula Point, Signal Road, the existing airport ferry, Cambria Drive, Plaza Mall, the US Coast Guard Station, and the Forest Park subdivision. On Gravina Island, each alternative would have a terminus at Ketichikan International Airport and provide access to Borough and other developable land north of the airport. With the exception of one ferry alternative, all build alternatives would have a terminus on Gravina Island at the northern boundary between the airport property and the Borough property. The ferry alternative that would not provide a terminus at the airport /Borough property boundary would originate north of that boundary at Lewis Point. All build alternatives would provide for a roadway around the southern end of the airport runway connecting the airport terminal to a spine road on the west side of the airport. The roadway associated with each alternative would provide two lanes; roadway lengths range from 16,670 feet to 42,100 feet. The preferred alternative (Alternative F1) would provide for eight miles of new roadway, incorporating the bridge, connecting Tongass Avenue and the airport terminal via Pennock Island. Initial costs, annual operation and maintenance costs, and the 50-year lifecycle costs for the project are estimated at $230 million, $110,000, and $190 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new bridge would improve access to the airport and to developable land on Gravina Island, thereby enhancing convenience for residents Ketichikan and Gravina Island and the long-term economic situation on Gravina Island. Construction activities would employ 470 workers. Annual ferry-related expenditures would decline by $27.1 million. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would affect 30 privately owned parcels. The route would traverse 15 waterbodies, displace 10.7 acres of upland, 103.3 acres of wetland habitat, and 0.6 acre of essential fish habitat. Two historic sites would be affected visually. Boundaries associated with special visual flight rules under which the airport operates would be affected in 10 instances. 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.), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. JF - EPA number: 030376, Draft EIS--481 pages, Appendices A-L--601 pages, Appendices M-R--307 pages, August 11, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA-AK-EIS-03-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Bays KW - Bridges KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Cost Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Relocation Plans KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16354742?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=GRAVINA+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+KETCHIKAN%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&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: August 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36432079; 10359 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36432079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36384623; 10359-030364_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36384623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36382560; 10359-030364_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36382560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36381945; 10359-030364_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36381945?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36380281; 10359-030364_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36380281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36380154; 10359-030364_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36380154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36380029; 10359-030364_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36380029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36379932; 10359-030364_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36379932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - PRIMARY CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, HAWAII. AN - 36370208; 10359-030364_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements within the primary transportation corridor of Oahu, Hawaii is proposed. The primary transportation corridor extends from Kapolei in the Ewa District to the University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the primary urban center. Three alternatives, including a No-Build (Alternative 1), were considered in the draft EIS of August 2000 and were reconsidered, along with a revision of Alternative 3, in the draft supplemental EIS of March 2002. The three alternatives, as outlined in the draft supplemental EIS, are again considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 would include those projects expected to be implemented in the next three years, as well as expansion of bus service in developing areas to maintain existing levels of service. Alternative 2, which is the transportation system management (TSM) alternative, would feature the reconfiguration of the present bus route network to a hub-and-spoke system as well as some highway elements. Alternative 3 would build on the hub-and-spoke bus system proposed under Alternative 2, adding regional and in-town bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. Under Alternative 3, the regional BRT system would include a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to the downtown area with special ramps to transit centers, while the in-town BRT system would provide a high-capacity transit spine from Middle Street to the downtown area, a university branch from the downtown area to the University of Haiwaii-Manoa, and a Kakaako /Waikiki branch that would extend from downtown to Waikiki via Kakaako. Two options for the technology of the in-town BRT system are being studied. Both involve the use of low-floor, articulated electric buses. One is the "touchable embedded plate" technology, in which traction power would be provided to the vehicles through a power strip embedded in the roadway. Under either action alternative, noise barriers would be provided along sections of the Hawaii 1 Freeway in Waipahu. The other is a hybrid diesel/electric technology. The preferred alternative (Revised Alternative 3) is a revision of the regional BRT alternative. The revision would involve alterations in the ramp configuration; addition of a new BRT branch running from Iwilei Transit Center through downtown Honolulu, the Aloha Tower Marketplace, and Kakaako Makai en route to Waikiki; rerouting a short section of the University of Hawaii-Manoa BRT alignment from Ward Avenue to Pensacola Street; rerouting of a portion of the former Kakaako/Waikiki Branch; addition of two new stops to the Kakaako Mauka Branch; and relocation of two other stops. Estimated capital costs of implementation of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are $404.4 million, $540.8 million, and $954.9 million to $1.0 billion, respectively. Annual operating and maintenance costs of alternatives 1 and 2 and revised Alternative 3 are estimated at $120.7 million, $139.8 million, and $151.2 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system in the primary transportation corridor by providing alternatives to the private automobile. The action alternatives would also support desired development patterns, improve transportation linkage between Kapolei and Honolulu's urban core and between communities in the primary urban center. Alternative 3 as revised would best meet these objectives. Alternatives 2 and revised Alternative 3 would create substantial new employment opportunities. The build alternatives would improve regional air quality significantly. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Some businesses could be displaced to develop new transit centers and expanded maintenance facilities under Alternative 2 or 3 revised. Under Alternative 3 revised, the design of transit stops at some locations would adversely affect the historical environments of these areas. The extensive bus network under Alternative 2 would adversely affect bicycle travel due to the inclusion of semi-exclusive lanes in the downtown area. LEGAL MANDATES: General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 535), 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 abstracts of the draft EIS and the draft supplemental EIS, see 00-0437D, Volume 24, Number 4 and 02-0211D, Volume 26, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 030364, 507 pages, CR-ROM, August 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Central Business Districts KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Highways KW - Historic Sites KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Hawaii KW - General Bridge Act of 1946, Coast Guard 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/36370208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.title=PRIMARY+CORRIDOR+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+HONOLULU%2C+HAWAII.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Stimulating the anaerobic biodegradation of explosives by the addition of hydrogen or electron donors that produce hydrogen AN - 20236042; 5693425 AB - The anaerobic biodegradation of hexahydro-1, 3, 5-trinitro-1, 3, 5-triazine (RDX), octahydro-1, 3, 5, 7-tetranitro-1, 3, 5, 7-tetrazocine (HMX), and 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) by a methanogenic mixed culture was investigated. Microcosms containing a basal medium and the mixed culture were amended with ethanol, propylene glycol (PG), butyrate or hydrogen gas as the electron donor and a mixture of TNT (50 mu M), RDX (25 mu M), and HMX (8 mu M). After 29 days TNT and RDX were completely transformed to unidentified endproducts in the bottles amended with ethanol, hydrogen, or PG, while 53%, 40%, and 22% of the HMX was transformed, respectively. There was no loss of RDX or HMX in the electron donor unamended control bottles. The ethanol and PG were transformed to near stoichiometric amounts of acetate and propionate, suggesting the immediate electron donor supporting the transformation of the explosives was the H sub(2) evolved during the metabolism of the parent substrate. Our findings suggest that the addition of H sub(2) or electron donors that produce H sub(2) may be a useful strategy for enhancing the anaerobic biodegradation of explosives in contaminated groundwater and soils. JF - Water Research AU - Adrian, N R AU - Arnett, C M AU - Hickey, R F AD - Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research & Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 9005, Champaign, IL 61821-9005, USA, neal.r.adrian@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2003/08// PY - 2003 DA - Aug 2003 SP - 3499 EP - 3507 PB - Elsevier Science Ltd., The Boulevard Langford Lane Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK, [mailto:nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl], [URL:http://www.elsevier.nl] VL - 37 IS - 14 SN - 0043-1354, 0043-1354 KW - biotransformation KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts; Bioengineering Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene KW - Pollution (Groundwater) KW - Biodegradation KW - Groundwater Pollution KW - A 01450:Environmental Pollution & Waste Treatment KW - SW 3020:Sources and fate of pollution KW - SW 3070:Water quality control KW - AQ 00002:Water Quality KW - W 30965:Miscellaneous, Reviews KW - W4 210:Bioremediation, Bioreactors & BioCycling UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/20236042?accountid=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=Stimulating+the+anaerobic+biodegradation+of+explosives+by+the+addition+of+hydrogen+or+electron+donors+that+produce+hydrogen&rft.au=Adrian%2C+N+R%3BArnett%2C+C+M%3BHickey%2C+R+F&rft.aulast=Adrian&rft.aufirst=N&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=14&rft.spage=3499&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Research&rft.issn=00431354&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0043-1354%2803%2900240-9 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2003-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-11 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Biodegradation; Pollution (Groundwater); Groundwater Pollution DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(03)00240-9 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Invasion of Eurasian Watermilfoil in Lakes of the Western Upper Peninsula, Michigan AN - 19442238; 7173657 AB - Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum L.) has the potential to cause major long-term adverse environmental, recreational, and aesthetic impacts to the pristine lakes in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan. At the request of the U.S. Army Engineer District, Detroit, the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center evaluated 16 lakes in Gogebic County, first to verify if Eurasian watermilfoil was present in the lakes, and then to recommend spot-treatment control options for pioneer infestation of the exotic species. Surveys were conducted using a sampling grid and global positioning system method. Of the lakes surveyed, only two contained small infestations of Eurasian watermilfoil. Occurrences of rare, threatened, or endangered aquatic plants were documented during the lake evaluations. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Skogerboe, J G AU - Poovey, A G AU - Getsinger, K D AU - Kudray, G Y1 - 2003/08// PY - 2003 DA - August 2003 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Inland waters KW - Positioning systems KW - Myriophyllum spicatum KW - Laboratories KW - Myriophyllum KW - Aquatic plants KW - Rare species KW - Freshwater KW - Aesthetics KW - Inland water environment KW - Freshwater weeds KW - Evaluation KW - Lakes KW - Infestation KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Plant control KW - USA, Michigan, Detroit KW - Exotic Species KW - Waterways KW - Sampling KW - Research KW - Introduced species KW - Q2 09284:Hydrodynamics, wave, current and ice forces KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q5 08522:Protective measures and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19442238?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=Skogerboe%2C+J+G%3BPoovey%2C+A+G%3BGetsinger%2C+K+D%3BKudray%2C+G&rft.aulast=Skogerboe&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Invasion+of+Eurasian+Watermilfoil+in+Lakes+of+the+Western+Upper+Peninsula%2C+Michigan&rft.title=Invasion+of+Eurasian+Watermilfoil+in+Lakes+of+the+Western+Upper+Peninsula%2C+Michigan&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 - Economic Impacts of Recreation Activities at Oregon Coastal and River Ports AN - 19442218; 7173655 AB - This report documents the regional economic significance of recreational use associated with 18 Oregon coastal and river ports in 2002. Recreation use, visitor spending and regional economic effects were estimated using visitor surveys and regional economic input-output models. This study found that in 2002, over 700,000 recreation visits (in party-days) occurred at the 18 surveyed Oregon ports, resulting in $75 million in trip spending and $31 million in purchases of boat-related durable goods and other fixed costs. The spending by Port visitors was a significant economic factor to the State of Oregon, resulting in $109 million in sales, $42 million in personal income, and 1,700 jobs to the State's economy. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Chang, W-H AU - Jackson, R S Y1 - 2003/08// PY - 2003 DA - August 2003 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Rivers KW - Laboratories KW - Surveys KW - Freshwater KW - Economic Impact KW - Environmental factors KW - Model Studies KW - Income KW - Costs KW - Coastal zone KW - Recreation KW - Economics KW - Waterways KW - USA, Oregon KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q5 08501:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19442218?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=Chang%2C+W-H%3BJackson%2C+R+S&rft.aulast=Chang&rft.aufirst=W-H&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Economic+Impacts+of+Recreation+Activities+at+Oregon+Coastal+and+River+Ports&rft.title=Economic+Impacts+of+Recreation+Activities+at+Oregon+Coastal+and+River+Ports&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 - Using Terminal Services to Serve Geospatial Software and Data Resources to Corps Project Offices AN - 19439808; 7173654 AB - Advances in geographic information systems (GIS) are causing the technology to no longer be considered a separate entity, but rather an integral component of the overall information technology infrastructure. Most GIS platforms are moving from simple file-based data structures to complex spatial geodatabases built within large-scale database platforms, such as Oracle. The move toward centralized databases has many ramifications for how geospatial tools and data are distributed throughout a complex organization such as the Corps of Engineers. Project offices, in particular, represent a special challenge due to the limitations of their network connections to the district offices. Windows Terminal Server technology represents one solution for serving these resources to project and field offices. This document addresses some of the technical issues related to the use of this technology and some of the advantages and limitations of such an approach. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Graves, M R Y1 - 2003/08// PY - 2003 DA - August 2003 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Databases KW - Organizations KW - Laboratories KW - Structure KW - Offshore structures KW - Networks KW - Water resources KW - Waterways KW - Geographical Information Systems KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q5 08501:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19439808?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=Graves%2C+M+R&rft.aulast=Graves&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Using+Terminal+Services+to+Serve+Geospatial+Software+and+Data+Resources+to+Corps+Project+Offices&rft.title=Using+Terminal+Services+to+Serve+Geospatial+Software+and+Data+Resources+to+Corps+Project+Offices&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 - Channel Evolution and Erosion in PAM-Treated and Untreated Experimental Waterways AN - 1521400818; 5915773 AB - Unprotected earthen waterways (e.g., grassed waterways before vegetation) and ephemeral gullies are prone to severe erosion. Previous research has suggested that polyacrylamide (PAM) may reduce erosion in areas of concentrated flow. This research tested the hypothesis that a PAM-treated channel would result in significantly less erosion than untreated soil in a pre-formed, trapezoidal channel measuring 0.6 m at the top, 0.1 m at the bottom, 0.13 m deep, and 15.2 m long. Anionic PAM (30% charge density, 18 Mg mol super(-1) molecular weight) was applied in solution at a rate of 80 kg ha super(-1). The soil used in these experiments was red clay loam (37% sand, 35% silt, 28% clay). Channel geometry and sediment concentration were measured for each of four inflow rates (0.0016, 0.0032, 0.0063, and 0.0126 m super(3) s super(-1)). A secondary objective was to measure the influence of PAM on headcut rate advance. Measured sediment yield rate was significantly less from PAM-treated channels than from the control. Reductions in sediment yield rate ranged from 93% to 98%. Channel incision depth was not different between the two treatments; however, effective flow widths (assuming rectangular channel geometry) were significantly greater for the untreated control channel. Headcut advance rates were greatly reduced in PAM-treated channels (0.06 to 0.6 m h super(-1)) compared to the untreated channel (17.8 m h super(-1)) in our limited data. These results show that PAM was an effective means of controlling erosion in experimental earth channels. JF - Transactions of the ASAE AU - Peterson, J R AU - Flanagan, D C AU - Robinson, K M AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE ED-DN, P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, IL 61204, USA, joel.r.petersonsuper(s)ace.army.mil Y1 - 2003/08// PY - 2003 DA - August 2003 SP - 1023 EP - 1031 VL - 46 IS - 4 SN - 0001-2351, 0001-2351 KW - ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Clay loam KW - Channel morphology KW - Silt KW - Soil erosion KW - Channels KW - Sediment concentration KW - Channel erosion KW - Gullies KW - Sediment yield KW - Grassed waterways KW - Waterways KW - Erosion control KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - SW 0870:Erosion and sedimentation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1521400818?accountid=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=Transactions+of+the+ASAE&rft.atitle=Channel+Evolution+and+Erosion+in+PAM-Treated+and+Untreated+Experimental+Waterways&rft.au=Peterson%2C+J+R%3BFlanagan%2C+D+C%3BRobinson%2C+K+M&rft.aulast=Peterson&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2003-08-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1023&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transactions+of+the+ASAE&rft.issn=00012351&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2016-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-06-22 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Channels; Silt; Soil erosion; Erosion control; Sediment concentration; Channel erosion; Gullies; Clay loam; Sediment yield; Grassed waterways; Channel morphology; Waterways ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRACTABEL CALYPSO PIPELINE PROJECT, FREEPORT, BAHAMAS TO FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. AN - 36437858; 10357 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline and associated aboveground facilities to transport gas from a point near Freeport in the Bahamas to a point near Fort Lauderdale, Florida are proposed. The pipeline system would transport 832,000 dekatherms (832,000 million cubic feet) per day of natural gas to new markets in south Florida. The southeastern Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The south Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The facilities would provide for a 90-mile pipeline system extending from a liquefied natural gas import/export terminal near Freeport to a receipt point near Fort Lauderdale. The portion of the pipeline under US jurisdiction and, therefore, addressed in this EIS, would extend 36 miles from the US/Bahama Exclusive Economic Zone boundary to a shore approach near Port Everglades in Broward County. The pipeline would then proceed 6.5 miles overland to an interconnect with the Florida Gas Transmission Company's Lauderdale Lateral Pipeline near the Florida Power and Light's (FPL) Fort Lauderdale Power Plant. The jurisdictional portion of this project would also include construction and operation of two block valves and one meter and pressure regulation station/block valve. This draft EIS also considers a No Action Alternative, project system alternatives, pipeline route alternatives, and route variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would provide much needed natural gas capacity and supply to meet the needs of FPL in south Florida, allowing FPL to satisfy the electric power demand of its end-users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project facilities would require setting aside approximately 900 acres, more than 800 acres of which would be associated with the 200-foot-wide rights-of-way typically authorized for offshore pipelines at depths of greater than 200 feet. The actual area of deepwater disturbance would be limited to the footprint of the 24-inch-diameter pipeline. Construction of the shallower portion of the pipeline in marine waters would affect approximately 7.9 acres extending from the shoreline to a depth of 200 feet. Long-term impacts in the nearshore habitat would affect less than 0.2 acre of live bottom habitat. Construction of onshore facilities would affect 72.7 acres of land in Broward County, Florida; of this affected area, 43.7 acres would be impacted by activities within the pipeline rights-of-way, 1.6 acres by construction of aboveground facilities, and 27.4 acres by extra workspaces, pipeline storage yards, and contractor yards. Permanent onshore impact would affect 7.9 acres. A total of 24 commercial structures would lie within 50 feet of the construction rights-of-way. Four waterbodies would be crossed, including two major waterbodies and two minor waterbodies. Construction activities would disturb less than 0.1 acre of wetland vegetation; there would be no permanent wetland impacts. Small areas of nearshore marine habitat would be impacted. Essential fish habitat, including coral reef, seagrass, and estuarine habitat, could be affected. Five state-listed protected species could be affected. Cultural resource surveys have been conducted along the pipeline route, and construction would be deferred until all the results of these surveys and the related mitigation plans, if any, were forwarded. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 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: 030362, 312 pages, July 31, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/DEIS-0163D KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - International Programs KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reefs KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRACTABEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=TRACTABEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&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: July 31, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36431052; 10354 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a beach erosion control measures for the city of Imperial Beach, California is proposed. Imperial Beach lies within the Silver Strand littoral cell, which extends from Point Loma to south of the US/Mexico border. The shoreline was initially a natural sand spit, supplied with sediment primarily by the Tijuana River, Since the 1940s, construction of dams and reservoirs on the river has resulted in the need to artificially renourish the area to reduce beach erosion. Currently, the southern part of the Silver Strand littoral cell is eroding, while there is some accretion upcoast in the north. The shoreline of the city is severely impacted due to effects caused by the eroded section. Approximately 100,000 cubic yards erodes from the reach each year, causing the shoreline to retreat at the rate of 6.6 feet per year. At the current retreat rage, the shoreline in the north reach is expected to reach the first line of development by 2007. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The recommended alternative (Alternative 1B) would involve development of a base beach fill consisting of 588,600 cubic yards of suitable beach sand plus an additional 999,312 cubic yards of fill. The placement of fill would extend 7,100 feet from the northern groin to the southern end of the development, providing a base nourishment beach width of 82 feet at an elevation of 13 feet above mean lower low water. The additional sacrificial beach width would have a width of 66 feet; hence, initially the nourished beach would be 148 yards wider than the existing beach. The nourished beach would be expected to erode to the 82-foot width after 10 years. At that time, the beach would be renourished with a sacrificial advance beach fill of 999,312 million cubic yards, a measure that would be repeated every 10 years for the remaining 40 years of the project's scope. Estimated annualized cost of the project is $1.17 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 2.26. (Blue pages/3-13) POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection to structures and other development along the shoreline, the project would significantly enhance the recreational value of the beach. Project benefits would be worth $2.1 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and deposition of nourishment sand would destroy benthos and benthic habitat and result in temporary turbidity within the water column. The south end of the study area, which is currently not included in the designated swimming area, would likely attract more swimmers, possibly exposing them to perilous ocean conditions in an area not patrolled by lifeguards. Construction equipment in the staging areas would impede access to the beach. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-500). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0453D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030359, 351 pages, July 31, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Borrow Pits KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36431052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+STRAND+SHORELINE%2C+IMPERIAL+BEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILVER+STRAND+SHORELINE%2C+IMPERIAL+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, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 31, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRACTABEL CALYPSO PIPELINE PROJECT, FREEPORT, BAHAMAS TO FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - TRACTABEL CALYPSO PIPELINE PROJECT, FREEPORT, BAHAMAS TO FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. AN - 36382683; 10357-030362_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline and associated aboveground facilities to transport gas from a point near Freeport in the Bahamas to a point near Fort Lauderdale, Florida are proposed. The pipeline system would transport 832,000 dekatherms (832,000 million cubic feet) per day of natural gas to new markets in south Florida. The southeastern Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The south Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The facilities would provide for a 90-mile pipeline system extending from a liquefied natural gas import/export terminal near Freeport to a receipt point near Fort Lauderdale. The portion of the pipeline under US jurisdiction and, therefore, addressed in this EIS, would extend 36 miles from the US/Bahama Exclusive Economic Zone boundary to a shore approach near Port Everglades in Broward County. The pipeline would then proceed 6.5 miles overland to an interconnect with the Florida Gas Transmission Company's Lauderdale Lateral Pipeline near the Florida Power and Light's (FPL) Fort Lauderdale Power Plant. The jurisdictional portion of this project would also include construction and operation of two block valves and one meter and pressure regulation station/block valve. This draft EIS also considers a No Action Alternative, project system alternatives, pipeline route alternatives, and route variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would provide much needed natural gas capacity and supply to meet the needs of FPL in south Florida, allowing FPL to satisfy the electric power demand of its end-users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project facilities would require setting aside approximately 900 acres, more than 800 acres of which would be associated with the 200-foot-wide rights-of-way typically authorized for offshore pipelines at depths of greater than 200 feet. The actual area of deepwater disturbance would be limited to the footprint of the 24-inch-diameter pipeline. Construction of the shallower portion of the pipeline in marine waters would affect approximately 7.9 acres extending from the shoreline to a depth of 200 feet. Long-term impacts in the nearshore habitat would affect less than 0.2 acre of live bottom habitat. Construction of onshore facilities would affect 72.7 acres of land in Broward County, Florida; of this affected area, 43.7 acres would be impacted by activities within the pipeline rights-of-way, 1.6 acres by construction of aboveground facilities, and 27.4 acres by extra workspaces, pipeline storage yards, and contractor yards. Permanent onshore impact would affect 7.9 acres. A total of 24 commercial structures would lie within 50 feet of the construction rights-of-way. Four waterbodies would be crossed, including two major waterbodies and two minor waterbodies. Construction activities would disturb less than 0.1 acre of wetland vegetation; there would be no permanent wetland impacts. Small areas of nearshore marine habitat would be impacted. Essential fish habitat, including coral reef, seagrass, and estuarine habitat, could be affected. Five state-listed protected species could be affected. Cultural resource surveys have been conducted along the pipeline route, and construction would be deferred until all the results of these surveys and the related mitigation plans, if any, were forwarded. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 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: 030362, 312 pages, July 31, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/DEIS-0163D KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - International Programs KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reefs KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRACTABEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=TRACTABEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&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: July 31, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRACTABEL CALYPSO PIPELINE PROJECT, FREEPORT, BAHAMAS TO FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - TRACTABEL CALYPSO PIPELINE PROJECT, FREEPORT, BAHAMAS TO FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA. AN - 36380106; 10357-030362_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline and associated aboveground facilities to transport gas from a point near Freeport in the Bahamas to a point near Fort Lauderdale, Florida are proposed. The pipeline system would transport 832,000 dekatherms (832,000 million cubic feet) per day of natural gas to new markets in south Florida. The southeastern Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The south Florida region is expected to experience significant population growth over the next 10 years, requiring an increase in electric generation capacity, much of which is to be provided by gas-fired generators. The facilities would provide for a 90-mile pipeline system extending from a liquefied natural gas import/export terminal near Freeport to a receipt point near Fort Lauderdale. The portion of the pipeline under US jurisdiction and, therefore, addressed in this EIS, would extend 36 miles from the US/Bahama Exclusive Economic Zone boundary to a shore approach near Port Everglades in Broward County. The pipeline would then proceed 6.5 miles overland to an interconnect with the Florida Gas Transmission Company's Lauderdale Lateral Pipeline near the Florida Power and Light's (FPL) Fort Lauderdale Power Plant. The jurisdictional portion of this project would also include construction and operation of two block valves and one meter and pressure regulation station/block valve. This draft EIS also considers a No Action Alternative, project system alternatives, pipeline route alternatives, and route variations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline system would provide much needed natural gas capacity and supply to meet the needs of FPL in south Florida, allowing FPL to satisfy the electric power demand of its end-users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project facilities would require setting aside approximately 900 acres, more than 800 acres of which would be associated with the 200-foot-wide rights-of-way typically authorized for offshore pipelines at depths of greater than 200 feet. The actual area of deepwater disturbance would be limited to the footprint of the 24-inch-diameter pipeline. Construction of the shallower portion of the pipeline in marine waters would affect approximately 7.9 acres extending from the shoreline to a depth of 200 feet. Long-term impacts in the nearshore habitat would affect less than 0.2 acre of live bottom habitat. Construction of onshore facilities would affect 72.7 acres of land in Broward County, Florida; of this affected area, 43.7 acres would be impacted by activities within the pipeline rights-of-way, 1.6 acres by construction of aboveground facilities, and 27.4 acres by extra workspaces, pipeline storage yards, and contractor yards. Permanent onshore impact would affect 7.9 acres. A total of 24 commercial structures would lie within 50 feet of the construction rights-of-way. Four waterbodies would be crossed, including two major waterbodies and two minor waterbodies. Construction activities would disturb less than 0.1 acre of wetland vegetation; there would be no permanent wetland impacts. Small areas of nearshore marine habitat would be impacted. Essential fish habitat, including coral reef, seagrass, and estuarine habitat, could be affected. Five state-listed protected species could be affected. Cultural resource surveys have been conducted along the pipeline route, and construction would be deferred until all the results of these surveys and the related mitigation plans, if any, were forwarded. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1241), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 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: 030362, 312 pages, July 31, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/DEIS-0163D KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - International Programs KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reefs KW - Waterways KW - Wetlands KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Bahamas KW - Florida KW - Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, Compliance KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Licensing KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36380106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRACTABEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=TRACTABEL+CALYPSO+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+FREEPORT%2C+BAHAMAS+TO+FORT+LAUDERDALE%2C+FLORIDA.&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: July 31, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - SILVER STRAND SHORELINE, IMPERIAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36348868; 10354-030359_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a beach erosion control measures for the city of Imperial Beach, California is proposed. Imperial Beach lies within the Silver Strand littoral cell, which extends from Point Loma to south of the US/Mexico border. The shoreline was initially a natural sand spit, supplied with sediment primarily by the Tijuana River, Since the 1940s, construction of dams and reservoirs on the river has resulted in the need to artificially renourish the area to reduce beach erosion. Currently, the southern part of the Silver Strand littoral cell is eroding, while there is some accretion upcoast in the north. The shoreline of the city is severely impacted due to effects caused by the eroded section. Approximately 100,000 cubic yards erodes from the reach each year, causing the shoreline to retreat at the rate of 6.6 feet per year. At the current retreat rage, the shoreline in the north reach is expected to reach the first line of development by 2007. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The recommended alternative (Alternative 1B) would involve development of a base beach fill consisting of 588,600 cubic yards of suitable beach sand plus an additional 999,312 cubic yards of fill. The placement of fill would extend 7,100 feet from the northern groin to the southern end of the development, providing a base nourishment beach width of 82 feet at an elevation of 13 feet above mean lower low water. The additional sacrificial beach width would have a width of 66 feet; hence, initially the nourished beach would be 148 yards wider than the existing beach. The nourished beach would be expected to erode to the 82-foot width after 10 years. At that time, the beach would be renourished with a sacrificial advance beach fill of 999,312 million cubic yards, a measure that would be repeated every 10 years for the remaining 40 years of the project's scope. Estimated annualized cost of the project is $1.17 million, and the benefit-cost ratio is estimated at 2.26. (Blue pages/3-13) POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to providing protection to structures and other development along the shoreline, the project would significantly enhance the recreational value of the beach. Project benefits would be worth $2.1 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and deposition of nourishment sand would destroy benthos and benthic habitat and result in temporary turbidity within the water column. The south end of the study area, which is currently not included in the designated swimming area, would likely attract more swimmers, possibly exposing them to perilous ocean conditions in an area not patrolled by lifeguards. Construction equipment in the staging areas would impede access to the beach. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-500). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0453D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030359, 351 pages, July 31, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Coastal Zones KW - Borrow Pits KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1958, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SILVER+STRAND+SHORELINE%2C+IMPERIAL+BEACH%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SILVER+STRAND+SHORELINE%2C+IMPERIAL+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, Los Angeles, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 31, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S.R. 0015, SECTION 088, SNYDER, UNION, AND NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S.R. 0015, SECTION 088, SNYDER, UNION, AND NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36350918; 10351-030356_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new four-lane, limited access highway extending 12 to 13 miles from the existing Selinsgrove Bypass (US 11/15) in Monroe Township to the interchange between Pennsylvania Route 147 (PA 147) and PA 45 in West Chillisquaque Township, Pennsylvania is proposed. The facility would traverse Synder, Union, and Northumberland counties. The existing roadway corridor is characterized by high levels of traffic congestion due, in part, to large volumes of truck traffic and other through traffic. The corridor is also characterized by a high accident rate. Economic and population growth in the region call for additional capacity within the corridor. This final EIS considers three build alternatives in the southern section of the project area, four build alternatives in the northern section of the project area, and a No-Build Alternative. The northern section component of the project would involve a new bridge crossing of the Susquehanna River. The preferred alternative for the southern section would extend north and west from US 11/15 in the area of the stub of the Selinsgrove Bypass, swing to the north around the Kingswood Road subdivision, turn to the east to avoid the closed municipal landfill, continue north and east through Ash Basin 2 to an interchange with the 61 Connector on Ash Basin 3, and turn northwest to its connection with the northern section. The preferred alternative for the northern section would head north and east from that point. A fully directional interchange would be provided between the facilities at US 15 in the Winfield area. The alignment would then proceed east across the West Branch Susquehanna River on a structure that spans the floodway and floodplain on both sides of the river, continue north and east to an interchange with Ridge Road, turn north on an alignment east of PA 147 to a point near PA 45. The cost estimate ranges for the southern and northern segment alternatives are $122.3 million to $186.2 million and $140.6 million to $163.9 million, respectively. The costs of the preferred southern and northern alternatives are estimated at $122.3 million and $140.6 million POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would increase capacity for local and through traffic and improve safety within the corridor significantly. Commercial vehicles would be accommodated without undue hazards to other highway vehicles. Economic growth in the region would be supported by easing movements of commercial vehicles and commuters. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the project would displace 58 residences and seven businesses, as well as wildlife habitat, farmland, and timberland. Wildlife community connectivity would be disrupted. The project would also displace approximately eight acres of wetlands. Traffic-related noise levels would exceed federal standards for 151 residential receptors., though 47 residences would benefit from mitigation. 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 01-0190D, Volume 25, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030356, Volume 1--444 pages, Volume 2--764 pages, July 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-01-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Timber KW - Water Quality Assessments 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/36350918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+SUSQUEHANNA+VALLEY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S.R.+0015%2C+SECTION+088%2C+SNYDER%2C+UNION%2C+AND+NORTHUMBERLAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+SUSQUEHANNA+VALLEY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S.R.+0015%2C+SECTION+088%2C+SNYDER%2C+UNION%2C+AND+NORTHUMBERLAND+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 - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S.R. 0015, SECTION 088, SNYDER, UNION, AND NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S.R. 0015, SECTION 088, SNYDER, UNION, AND NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36348812; 10351-030356_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new four-lane, limited access highway extending 12 to 13 miles from the existing Selinsgrove Bypass (US 11/15) in Monroe Township to the interchange between Pennsylvania Route 147 (PA 147) and PA 45 in West Chillisquaque Township, Pennsylvania is proposed. The facility would traverse Synder, Union, and Northumberland counties. The existing roadway corridor is characterized by high levels of traffic congestion due, in part, to large volumes of truck traffic and other through traffic. The corridor is also characterized by a high accident rate. Economic and population growth in the region call for additional capacity within the corridor. This final EIS considers three build alternatives in the southern section of the project area, four build alternatives in the northern section of the project area, and a No-Build Alternative. The northern section component of the project would involve a new bridge crossing of the Susquehanna River. The preferred alternative for the southern section would extend north and west from US 11/15 in the area of the stub of the Selinsgrove Bypass, swing to the north around the Kingswood Road subdivision, turn to the east to avoid the closed municipal landfill, continue north and east through Ash Basin 2 to an interchange with the 61 Connector on Ash Basin 3, and turn northwest to its connection with the northern section. The preferred alternative for the northern section would head north and east from that point. A fully directional interchange would be provided between the facilities at US 15 in the Winfield area. The alignment would then proceed east across the West Branch Susquehanna River on a structure that spans the floodway and floodplain on both sides of the river, continue north and east to an interchange with Ridge Road, turn north on an alignment east of PA 147 to a point near PA 45. The cost estimate ranges for the southern and northern segment alternatives are $122.3 million to $186.2 million and $140.6 million to $163.9 million, respectively. The costs of the preferred southern and northern alternatives are estimated at $122.3 million and $140.6 million POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would increase capacity for local and through traffic and improve safety within the corridor significantly. Commercial vehicles would be accommodated without undue hazards to other highway vehicles. Economic growth in the region would be supported by easing movements of commercial vehicles and commuters. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the project would displace 58 residences and seven businesses, as well as wildlife habitat, farmland, and timberland. Wildlife community connectivity would be disrupted. The project would also displace approximately eight acres of wetlands. Traffic-related noise levels would exceed federal standards for 151 residential receptors., though 47 residences would benefit from mitigation. 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 01-0190D, Volume 25, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030356, Volume 1--444 pages, Volume 2--764 pages, July 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-01-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Timber KW - Water Quality Assessments 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/36348812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+SUSQUEHANNA+VALLEY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S.R.+0015%2C+SECTION+088%2C+SNYDER%2C+UNION%2C+AND+NORTHUMBERLAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+SUSQUEHANNA+VALLEY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S.R.+0015%2C+SECTION+088%2C+SNYDER%2C+UNION%2C+AND+NORTHUMBERLAND+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 - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S.R. 0015, SECTION 088, SNYDER, UNION, AND NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S.R. 0015, SECTION 088, SNYDER, UNION, AND NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 36347917; 10351-030356_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new four-lane, limited access highway extending 12 to 13 miles from the existing Selinsgrove Bypass (US 11/15) in Monroe Township to the interchange between Pennsylvania Route 147 (PA 147) and PA 45 in West Chillisquaque Township, Pennsylvania is proposed. The facility would traverse Synder, Union, and Northumberland counties. The existing roadway corridor is characterized by high levels of traffic congestion due, in part, to large volumes of truck traffic and other through traffic. The corridor is also characterized by a high accident rate. Economic and population growth in the region call for additional capacity within the corridor. This final EIS considers three build alternatives in the southern section of the project area, four build alternatives in the northern section of the project area, and a No-Build Alternative. The northern section component of the project would involve a new bridge crossing of the Susquehanna River. The preferred alternative for the southern section would extend north and west from US 11/15 in the area of the stub of the Selinsgrove Bypass, swing to the north around the Kingswood Road subdivision, turn to the east to avoid the closed municipal landfill, continue north and east through Ash Basin 2 to an interchange with the 61 Connector on Ash Basin 3, and turn northwest to its connection with the northern section. The preferred alternative for the northern section would head north and east from that point. A fully directional interchange would be provided between the facilities at US 15 in the Winfield area. The alignment would then proceed east across the West Branch Susquehanna River on a structure that spans the floodway and floodplain on both sides of the river, continue north and east to an interchange with Ridge Road, turn north on an alignment east of PA 147 to a point near PA 45. The cost estimate ranges for the southern and northern segment alternatives are $122.3 million to $186.2 million and $140.6 million to $163.9 million, respectively. The costs of the preferred southern and northern alternatives are estimated at $122.3 million and $140.6 million POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would increase capacity for local and through traffic and improve safety within the corridor significantly. Commercial vehicles would be accommodated without undue hazards to other highway vehicles. Economic growth in the region would be supported by easing movements of commercial vehicles and commuters. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the project would displace 58 residences and seven businesses, as well as wildlife habitat, farmland, and timberland. Wildlife community connectivity would be disrupted. The project would also displace approximately eight acres of wetlands. Traffic-related noise levels would exceed federal standards for 151 residential receptors., though 47 residences would benefit from mitigation. 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 01-0190D, Volume 25, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030356, Volume 1--444 pages, Volume 2--764 pages, July 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-01-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Timber KW - Water Quality Assessments 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/36347917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+SUSQUEHANNA+VALLEY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S.R.+0015%2C+SECTION+088%2C+SNYDER%2C+UNION%2C+AND+NORTHUMBERLAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+SUSQUEHANNA+VALLEY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S.R.+0015%2C+SECTION+088%2C+SNYDER%2C+UNION%2C+AND+NORTHUMBERLAND+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 - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CENTRAL SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT, S.R. 0015, SECTION 088, SNYDER, UNION, AND NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTIES, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 15228112; 10351 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new four-lane, limited access highway extending 12 to 13 miles from the existing Selinsgrove Bypass (US 11/15) in Monroe Township to the interchange between Pennsylvania Route 147 (PA 147) and PA 45 in West Chillisquaque Township, Pennsylvania is proposed. The facility would traverse Synder, Union, and Northumberland counties. The existing roadway corridor is characterized by high levels of traffic congestion due, in part, to large volumes of truck traffic and other through traffic. The corridor is also characterized by a high accident rate. Economic and population growth in the region call for additional capacity within the corridor. This final EIS considers three build alternatives in the southern section of the project area, four build alternatives in the northern section of the project area, and a No-Build Alternative. The northern section component of the project would involve a new bridge crossing of the Susquehanna River. The preferred alternative for the southern section would extend north and west from US 11/15 in the area of the stub of the Selinsgrove Bypass, swing to the north around the Kingswood Road subdivision, turn to the east to avoid the closed municipal landfill, continue north and east through Ash Basin 2 to an interchange with the 61 Connector on Ash Basin 3, and turn northwest to its connection with the northern section. The preferred alternative for the northern section would head north and east from that point. A fully directional interchange would be provided between the facilities at US 15 in the Winfield area. The alignment would then proceed east across the West Branch Susquehanna River on a structure that spans the floodway and floodplain on both sides of the river, continue north and east to an interchange with Ridge Road, turn north on an alignment east of PA 147 to a point near PA 45. The cost estimate ranges for the southern and northern segment alternatives are $122.3 million to $186.2 million and $140.6 million to $163.9 million, respectively. The costs of the preferred southern and northern alternatives are estimated at $122.3 million and $140.6 million POSITIVE IMPACTS: The facility would increase capacity for local and through traffic and improve safety within the corridor significantly. Commercial vehicles would be accommodated without undue hazards to other highway vehicles. Economic growth in the region would be supported by easing movements of commercial vehicles and commuters. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the project would displace 58 residences and seven businesses, as well as wildlife habitat, farmland, and timberland. Wildlife community connectivity would be disrupted. The project would also displace approximately eight acres of wetlands. Traffic-related noise levels would exceed federal standards for 151 residential receptors., though 47 residences would benefit from mitigation. 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 01-0190D, Volume 25, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030356, Volume 1--444 pages, Volume 2--764 pages, July 30, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-01-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Timber KW - Water Quality Assessments 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/15228112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CENTRAL+SUSQUEHANNA+VALLEY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S.R.+0015%2C+SECTION+088%2C+SNYDER%2C+UNION%2C+AND+NORTHUMBERLAND+COUNTIES%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=CENTRAL+SUSQUEHANNA+VALLEY+TRANSPORTATION+PROJECT%2C+S.R.+0015%2C+SECTION+088%2C+SNYDER%2C+UNION%2C+AND+NORTHUMBERLAND+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 - Final. Preparation date: July 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 36428059; 10349 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 4/61 in Chesterfield Valley would also be implemented. Five alternatives, including five new bridge and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A2) 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 two lanes of westbound traffic. Two lanes 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, and 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.). JF - EPA number: 030354, 175 pages and maps, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-03-01-D 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/36428059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-29&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 - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36426482; 10350 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36426482?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 9 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36383457; 10350-030355_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 3 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36383290; 10350-030355_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36383290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 6 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36382511; 10350-030355_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 4 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36381360; 10350-030355_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381360?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 5 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36381262; 10350-030355_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381262?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 7 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36381149; 10350-030355_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 2 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36381111; 10350-030355_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381111?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 1 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36381026; 10350-030355_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381026?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 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 2] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 36374263; 10349-030354_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 4/61 in Chesterfield Valley would also be implemented. Five alternatives, including five new bridge and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A2) 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 two lanes of westbound traffic. Two lanes 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, and 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.). JF - EPA number: 030354, 175 pages and maps, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-03-01-D 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/36374263?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&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 - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2003 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 2 of 2] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 40/61 BRIDGE LOCATION STUDY OVER THE MISSOURI RIVER, ST. CHARLES AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MISSOURI. AN - 36370708; 10349-030354_0002 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 4/61 in Chesterfield Valley would also be implemented. Five alternatives, including five new bridge and a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative A2) 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 two lanes of westbound traffic. Two lanes 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, and 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.). JF - EPA number: 030354, 175 pages and maps, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-03-01-D 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/36370708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&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 - Draft. Preparation date: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). [Part 8 of 9] T2 - KING COVE ACCESS PROJECT, ALEUTIANS EAST BOROUGH, ALASKA (PROJECT APPLICATION FILE NUMBER 2-2000-0300; WATERWAY NUMBER: COLD BAY 12). AN - 36367730; 10350-030355_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a year-round marine-road transportation system between the cities of King Cove and Cold Bay in the Alaska East Borough (AEB) of Alaska is proposed. The cities are located at the western end of the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 625 miles southwest of Anchorage. The existing commercial light aircraft and vessel transportation systems that serve the communities are inadequate to the needs of residents and visitors. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 2), are considered in this draft EIS. The AEB's preferred alternative (alternative 1) would result in a road /hovercraft transportation system, providing service from the northeastern corner of Cold Bay to Cross Wind Cove on the west side of Cold Bay. Of the 151.4-acre project footprint, the King Cove Corporation (KCC) owns 148.3 surface acres, while the state of Alaska owns the other 3.12 acres. The Aleut Regional Corporation owns 111 subsurface acres, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service owns 37.3 subsurface acres underlying KCC lanes within the boundaries of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. Proposed facilities would include a 17.2-mile access road, a terminal on a 5.43-acre site at the northeastern corner of Cold Bay, two borrow sites, a two-acre disposal site, and two temporary barge landings. One of three hovercraft designs would be considered. Estimated cost of the project ranges from $19 million to $23.4 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $870,000 POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transportation system would provide a safe, reliable, and comfortable means of moving between the two cities. The system would be relatively simple to operate and maintain and constitute a suitable means of transportation in the affected rural-marine Alaskan and Alaska Peninsula coastal environment. Medical evacuation from the two communities would be rendered more efficient and effective. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would require the construction of 239 culverts and bridges, affecting the streams crossed, including 17 streams that support anadromous fish habitat. Fill related to the project would affect 23 acres of marine wetlands and 19.9 acres of non-marine wetlands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (43 U.S.C. 1601 eq seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), King Cove Health and Safety Act, and Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (P.L. 105-277). JF - EPA number: 030355, Draft EIS--569 pages and maps, Appendices--321 pages, Public Notice of Availability--25 pages, Executive Summary--29 pages, July 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Disposal KW - Ferries KW - Fish KW - Marine Systems KW - Noise Assessments KW - Preserves KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Alaska KW - Aleutian Islands KW - Izembek National Wildlife Refuge KW - Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - King Cove Health and Safety Act, Funding KW - Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36367730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&rft.title=KING+COVE+ACCESS+PROJECT%2C+ALEUTIANS+EAST+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28PROJECT+APPLICATION+FILE+NUMBER+2-2000-0300%3B+WATERWAY+NUMBER%3A+COLD+BAY+12%29.&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: July 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SECOND ARMORED CAVALRY REGIMENT TRANSFORMATION AND INSTALLATION MISSION SUPPORT, JOINT READINESS TRAINING CENTER AND FORT POLK, LOUISIANA AND LONG-TERM MILITARY TRAINING USE OF KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST LANDS. AN - 15226028; 10348 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transformation installation support measures for the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment (2d ACR) at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JTRC) and Fort Polk in Louisiana is proposed. Fork Polk provides facilities for home-basing of the 2d ACR and several other combat, combat service, and combat service support units. The 604,000-acre Kisatchie National Forest, which consists of several large tracts located throughout northwestern and west-central Louisiana, provides terrain for military exercises for troops based at the fort. The U.S. Army and the U.S. Forest Service are proposing general actions affecting the JRTC and Fork Polk, surrounding Forest Service lands, and England Industrial Airpark at Alexandria International Airport. The Army proposes to: 1) transform the 2d ACR to make it part of the Army's Interim Force; 2) provide installation mission support to home-based and rotational units to meet their training needs for current and future missions by modernizing and improving maneuver areas and ranges, constructing numerous facilities, and performing other actions at the JRTC and Fort Polk, portions of Forest Service lands, and England Industrial Airpark; and 3) continue its long-term collaborative use and joint stewardship of portions of the national forest and to renew its agreement with the Forest Service for military training use of those lands. The Forest Service, for its part, proposed to thin approximately 21,540 acres of upland pine stands designated for military training use by the Army and to classify as "deleted", and thereby removed from further management and monitoring, habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker clusters that have been inactive for the past five years. In addition to the proposed actions, this draft EIS addresses a No Action Alternative and six alternatives associated with the three principle elements of the proposed action. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed actions would allow the JRTC and Fork Polk to assist in bringing the Army's Interim Force to operational capability (proposed to occur by May 2006); provide for realistic, advanced field training, modernized weapons training, and performance evaluation opportunities for Stryker Brigade Combat Teams and other Army brigades; and to provide sustainable training lands and support facilities for forces training at the JRTC and Fort Polk. The increased military presence in the area would increase the housing base and otherwise enhance local socioeconomic indicators. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities and increased training intensity would result in destruction of vegetation, disturbance and compaction of soils, displacement of wetland, temporary or permanent loss of the associated wildlife habitat, and sedimentation of receiving surface flows. Construction and training activities would also impact cultural resource sites. Habitat for the federally protected red-cockaded woodpecker and Louisiana pine snake, as well as for other species of concern, would be affected. Certain stream reaches would continue to fail to meet water quality requirements for their designated uses. Limitation of access to national forest lands during training exercises would impede recreational use of the area, and military use of the area would constitute a threat to public safety. Storage and use of hazardous materials, including ordnance, within the area would also pose a safety hazard. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmetnal Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030353, 1,244 pages and maps; CD-ROM, July 25, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Forests KW - Health Hazards KW - Housing KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Timber KW - Timber Management KW - Water Quality KW - Fort Polk, Louisiana KW - Kisatchie National Forest KW - Louisiana UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15226028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SECOND+ARMORED+CAVALRY+REGIMENT+TRANSFORMATION+AND+INSTALLATION+MISSION+SUPPORT%2C+JOINT+READINESS+TRAINING+CENTER+AND+FORT+POLK%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+LONG-TERM+MILITARY+TRAINING+USE+OF+KISATCHIE+NATIONAL+FOREST+LANDS.&rft.title=SECOND+ARMORED+CAVALRY+REGIMENT+TRANSFORMATION+AND+INSTALLATION+MISSION+SUPPORT%2C+JOINT+READINESS+TRAINING+CENTER+AND+FORT+POLK%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+LONG-TERM+MILITARY+TRAINING+USE+OF+KISATCHIE+NATIONAL+FOREST+LANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT FEATURES NORTH OF THE FELLSMERE GRADE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, UPPER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN AND RELATED AREAS, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1986). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT FEATURES NORTH OF THE FELLSMERE GRADE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, UPPER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN AND RELATED AREAS, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1986). AN - 36348103; 10319-030324_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of project features north of Fellsmere Grade Central and the Southern Florida Flood Control Project in the Upper St. Johns River basin and associated areas of Brevard County, Florida is proposed. The Upper St. Johns River Basin Project is located near the coast in southeast Florida. Project features are located between US Highway 192 and the Indian River County line. Construction of the flood control project was initiated in 1966 but halted in 1972 pending preparation of a comprehensive EIS. Subsequent legislative measures and management decisions resulted in submission of a new conceptual flood control plan for the basin to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for technical review in 1980. A final plan was approved by the Corps in 1986. Currently, all project features south of the Fellsmere Grade are completed and construction is progressing on the eastern boundary of the project between Fellsmere Grade and US 192. The hydrologic results of project features have resulted in prolonged flooding of the natural marshes in the area, affecting salinity and nutrient loadings in these brackish wetlands and affecting the extend of the floodplain. The action proposed in this final supplement to the final EIS would consist of separating discharges from Structure 96B (S-96B) and S-96C such that S-96B would discharge directly into the Three Forks Marsh Conservation Area, while S-96C would continue to discharge directly into the St. Johns River Marsh Conservation Area (SJMCA). This regime would eliminate the need to create either several gaps or one major weir structure in the C-40 levee to divert floodwaters into the TFMCA. The TFMCA would operate as a single unit. An existing channel downstream of S-96B in the TFMCA would be improved to provide a conveyance channel from the structure. This channel would be separated from the TFMCA marsh by a low berm to reduce potential negative water quality impacts to wetlands. Unregulated outflows from the TFMCA to the SJMCA would occur over a 600-foot weir with a crest elevation at 20 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD) located near River Mile 273. Structure S-257 would be enlarged to consist of two 60-inch culverts. When water levels in the TFMCA fell below the crest height of the weir, S-257 would remain fully open until water levels fall to 10 feet NVGD or below. Discharges through S-257 would then be reduced 20 percent per day for five days until the structure was closed. S-257 would be closed when water was being discharged over the top of the weir. To provide for low-flow augmentation for Lake Washington, 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) would be released through S-257 whenever water levels in the TFMCA were greater than 14 feet NVGD and water levels in Lake Washington were below 13.5 feet NVGD and discharges into the lake under US 192 fell below 30 cfs. Two canal plugs with operable gate structures capable of discharging up to 100 cfs each would be provided in the C-40 canal in the SJMCA. Canal plugs would be located at the current plug locations E-4 and E-7. Culverts in both canal plugs would be fully opened during the dry season months of April through June. Culverts would be closed during the other nine months of the year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project modifications would enhance floodplain and aquatic habitats, provide and/or protect conveyance of water discharged downstream through Structures S-96B and S-96C, decrease the probability of significant freshwater discharges to the Indian River Lagoon, and generally improve water quality in the study area. Flood control benefits of the project would be preserved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the berm would require 357,013 cubic yards of material, and excavation of the channel would displace 257,760 cubic yards of material. Material displaced by channel dredging could be utilized in the construction of the berm. Large freshwater discharges to the Indian River Lagoon through the C-54 canal could increase turbidity and alter salinity regimes, resulting in adverse impacts to oyster beds, clam flats, and sea grasses. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-858), Flood Control Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-780), and Water Resources Development Act of 1972. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0071D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030324, 321 pages, July 11, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Salinity KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Weirs KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - St. Johns River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1948, Project Authorization KW - Flood Control Act of 1954, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348103?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MODIFICATIONS+TO+PROJECT+FEATURES+NORTH+OF+THE+FELLSMERE+GRADE+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+UPPER+ST.+JOHNS+RIVER+BASIN+AND+RELATED+AREAS%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1986%29.&rft.title=MODIFICATIONS+TO+PROJECT+FEATURES+NORTH+OF+THE+FELLSMERE+GRADE+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+UPPER+ST.+JOHNS+RIVER+BASIN+AND+RELATED+AREAS%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1986%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 - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MODIFICATIONS TO PROJECT FEATURES NORTH OF THE FELLSMERE GRADE CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, UPPER ST. JOHNS RIVER BASIN AND RELATED AREAS, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 1986). AN - 15227150; 10319 AB - PURPOSE: The modification of project features north of Fellsmere Grade Central and the Southern Florida Flood Control Project in the Upper St. Johns River basin and associated areas of Brevard County, Florida is proposed. The Upper St. Johns River Basin Project is located near the coast in southeast Florida. Project features are located between US Highway 192 and the Indian River County line. Construction of the flood control project was initiated in 1966 but halted in 1972 pending preparation of a comprehensive EIS. Subsequent legislative measures and management decisions resulted in submission of a new conceptual flood control plan for the basin to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for technical review in 1980. A final plan was approved by the Corps in 1986. Currently, all project features south of the Fellsmere Grade are completed and construction is progressing on the eastern boundary of the project between Fellsmere Grade and US 192. The hydrologic results of project features have resulted in prolonged flooding of the natural marshes in the area, affecting salinity and nutrient loadings in these brackish wetlands and affecting the extend of the floodplain. The action proposed in this final supplement to the final EIS would consist of separating discharges from Structure 96B (S-96B) and S-96C such that S-96B would discharge directly into the Three Forks Marsh Conservation Area, while S-96C would continue to discharge directly into the St. Johns River Marsh Conservation Area (SJMCA). This regime would eliminate the need to create either several gaps or one major weir structure in the C-40 levee to divert floodwaters into the TFMCA. The TFMCA would operate as a single unit. An existing channel downstream of S-96B in the TFMCA would be improved to provide a conveyance channel from the structure. This channel would be separated from the TFMCA marsh by a low berm to reduce potential negative water quality impacts to wetlands. Unregulated outflows from the TFMCA to the SJMCA would occur over a 600-foot weir with a crest elevation at 20 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD) located near River Mile 273. Structure S-257 would be enlarged to consist of two 60-inch culverts. When water levels in the TFMCA fell below the crest height of the weir, S-257 would remain fully open until water levels fall to 10 feet NVGD or below. Discharges through S-257 would then be reduced 20 percent per day for five days until the structure was closed. S-257 would be closed when water was being discharged over the top of the weir. To provide for low-flow augmentation for Lake Washington, 30 cubic feet per second (cfs) would be released through S-257 whenever water levels in the TFMCA were greater than 14 feet NVGD and water levels in Lake Washington were below 13.5 feet NVGD and discharges into the lake under US 192 fell below 30 cfs. Two canal plugs with operable gate structures capable of discharging up to 100 cfs each would be provided in the C-40 canal in the SJMCA. Canal plugs would be located at the current plug locations E-4 and E-7. Culverts in both canal plugs would be fully opened during the dry season months of April through June. Culverts would be closed during the other nine months of the year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project modifications would enhance floodplain and aquatic habitats, provide and/or protect conveyance of water discharged downstream through Structures S-96B and S-96C, decrease the probability of significant freshwater discharges to the Indian River Lagoon, and generally improve water quality in the study area. Flood control benefits of the project would be preserved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the berm would require 357,013 cubic yards of material, and excavation of the channel would displace 257,760 cubic yards of material. Material displaced by channel dredging could be utilized in the construction of the berm. Large freshwater discharges to the Indian River Lagoon through the C-54 canal could increase turbidity and alter salinity regimes, resulting in adverse impacts to oyster beds, clam flats, and sea grasses. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-858), Flood Control Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-780), and Water Resources Development Act of 1972. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0071D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030324, 321 pages, July 11, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Salinity KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Weirs KW - Wetlands KW - Florida KW - St. Johns River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1948, Project Authorization KW - Flood Control Act of 1954, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15227150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MODIFICATIONS+TO+PROJECT+FEATURES+NORTH+OF+THE+FELLSMERE+GRADE+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+UPPER+ST.+JOHNS+RIVER+BASIN+AND+RELATED+AREAS%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1986%29.&rft.title=MODIFICATIONS+TO+PROJECT+FEATURES+NORTH+OF+THE+FELLSMERE+GRADE+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+UPPER+ST.+JOHNS+RIVER+BASIN+AND+RELATED+AREAS%2C+BREVARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+1986%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 - Final. Preparation date: July 11, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTERNATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CAMERON, HIDALGO, AND WILLACY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - ALTERNATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CAMERON, HIDALGO, AND WILLACY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36382415; 10310-030312_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Revision of the vegetation maintenance activities of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) within the US portion of the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP), Texas is proposed. The 43,210-acre US portion of the LRGFCP is located in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The vegetation maintenance program was established to fulfill the US government's obligations under the IBWC Minutes Nos. 212 and 238 and to protect life and properties in the US and Mexico from Rio Grande floods. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with biological resources (which focus on habitat for ocelot, jaguarundi, Walker's manioc, Texas ayenia, and South Texas ambrosia), socioeconomics, environmental justice, land use, water resources, cultural resources, soils and geologic resources, hazardous materials, air quality, and noise. Four alternatives, including a Continued Maintenance (No Action) Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All alternatives address areas falling between river mile (RM) 28 and RM 186. The Continued Maintenance Alternative, which is the preferred alterative, would continue the current vegetation management practices developed by the US IBWC for the 1993 biological assessment prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This alternative would assume expansion of the area of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Vegetation would be maintained within 75 feet of the river between RM 28 and RM 62.5, and maintenance activities would cover an estimated 291 acres. A 33-foot-wide wildlife travel corridor would be established and maintained landward of the 75-foot maintenance strip. POSITIVE IMPACTS: None of the nine key issue resources would be affected by the preferred alternative. The plan would ensure the protection of habitat for key species and other wildlife and plants, while flood control and other socioeconomic benefits redounding from the current vegetation maintenance plan would continue unimpeded. A wildlife corridor covering approximately 57 acres would be established. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives other than the preferred alternative would use shifts in wildlife guilds as a result of habitat changes, affecting 12 to 42 acres of habitat for threatened and endangered ocelot and jaguarundi. The magnitude of flooding events would be reduced under one of the nonpreferred alternatives; this benefit would not be realized under the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would not establish the largest wildlife corridor possible (314 acres) under the alternatives considered. JF - EPA number: 030312, Volume I--244 pages, Volume II--671 pages and maps, Volume III--41 pages and maps, July 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - International Programs KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Rio Grande KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36382415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTERNATIVE+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PRACTICES+FOR+THE+LOWER+RIO+GRANDE+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+WILLACY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=ALTERNATIVE+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PRACTICES+FOR+THE+LOWER+RIO+GRANDE+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+WILLACY+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 and Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTERNATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CAMERON, HIDALGO, AND WILLACY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - ALTERNATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CAMERON, HIDALGO, AND WILLACY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36381814; 10310-030312_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Revision of the vegetation maintenance activities of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) within the US portion of the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP), Texas is proposed. The 43,210-acre US portion of the LRGFCP is located in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The vegetation maintenance program was established to fulfill the US government's obligations under the IBWC Minutes Nos. 212 and 238 and to protect life and properties in the US and Mexico from Rio Grande floods. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with biological resources (which focus on habitat for ocelot, jaguarundi, Walker's manioc, Texas ayenia, and South Texas ambrosia), socioeconomics, environmental justice, land use, water resources, cultural resources, soils and geologic resources, hazardous materials, air quality, and noise. Four alternatives, including a Continued Maintenance (No Action) Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All alternatives address areas falling between river mile (RM) 28 and RM 186. The Continued Maintenance Alternative, which is the preferred alterative, would continue the current vegetation management practices developed by the US IBWC for the 1993 biological assessment prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This alternative would assume expansion of the area of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Vegetation would be maintained within 75 feet of the river between RM 28 and RM 62.5, and maintenance activities would cover an estimated 291 acres. A 33-foot-wide wildlife travel corridor would be established and maintained landward of the 75-foot maintenance strip. POSITIVE IMPACTS: None of the nine key issue resources would be affected by the preferred alternative. The plan would ensure the protection of habitat for key species and other wildlife and plants, while flood control and other socioeconomic benefits redounding from the current vegetation maintenance plan would continue unimpeded. A wildlife corridor covering approximately 57 acres would be established. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives other than the preferred alternative would use shifts in wildlife guilds as a result of habitat changes, affecting 12 to 42 acres of habitat for threatened and endangered ocelot and jaguarundi. The magnitude of flooding events would be reduced under one of the nonpreferred alternatives; this benefit would not be realized under the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would not establish the largest wildlife corridor possible (314 acres) under the alternatives considered. JF - EPA number: 030312, Volume I--244 pages, Volume II--671 pages and maps, Volume III--41 pages and maps, July 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - International Programs KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Rio Grande KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36381814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTERNATIVE+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PRACTICES+FOR+THE+LOWER+RIO+GRANDE+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+WILLACY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=ALTERNATIVE+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PRACTICES+FOR+THE+LOWER+RIO+GRANDE+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+WILLACY+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 and Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTERNATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CAMERON, HIDALGO, AND WILLACY COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - ALTERNATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CAMERON, HIDALGO, AND WILLACY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36369849; 10310-030312_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Revision of the vegetation maintenance activities of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) within the US portion of the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP), Texas is proposed. The 43,210-acre US portion of the LRGFCP is located in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The vegetation maintenance program was established to fulfill the US government's obligations under the IBWC Minutes Nos. 212 and 238 and to protect life and properties in the US and Mexico from Rio Grande floods. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with biological resources (which focus on habitat for ocelot, jaguarundi, Walker's manioc, Texas ayenia, and South Texas ambrosia), socioeconomics, environmental justice, land use, water resources, cultural resources, soils and geologic resources, hazardous materials, air quality, and noise. Four alternatives, including a Continued Maintenance (No Action) Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All alternatives address areas falling between river mile (RM) 28 and RM 186. The Continued Maintenance Alternative, which is the preferred alterative, would continue the current vegetation management practices developed by the US IBWC for the 1993 biological assessment prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This alternative would assume expansion of the area of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Vegetation would be maintained within 75 feet of the river between RM 28 and RM 62.5, and maintenance activities would cover an estimated 291 acres. A 33-foot-wide wildlife travel corridor would be established and maintained landward of the 75-foot maintenance strip. POSITIVE IMPACTS: None of the nine key issue resources would be affected by the preferred alternative. The plan would ensure the protection of habitat for key species and other wildlife and plants, while flood control and other socioeconomic benefits redounding from the current vegetation maintenance plan would continue unimpeded. A wildlife corridor covering approximately 57 acres would be established. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives other than the preferred alternative would use shifts in wildlife guilds as a result of habitat changes, affecting 12 to 42 acres of habitat for threatened and endangered ocelot and jaguarundi. The magnitude of flooding events would be reduced under one of the nonpreferred alternatives; this benefit would not be realized under the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would not establish the largest wildlife corridor possible (314 acres) under the alternatives considered. JF - EPA number: 030312, Volume I--244 pages, Volume II--671 pages and maps, Volume III--41 pages and maps, July 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - International Programs KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Rio Grande KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36369849?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTERNATIVE+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PRACTICES+FOR+THE+LOWER+RIO+GRANDE+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+WILLACY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=ALTERNATIVE+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PRACTICES+FOR+THE+LOWER+RIO+GRANDE+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+WILLACY+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 and Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUETER-HESS RESERVOIR, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - RUETER-HESS RESERVOIR, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36347745; 10189-030315_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a reservoir and an associated water delivery system near the town of Parker in Douglas County, Colorado are proposed by the Parker Water and Sanitation District (PWSD). The off-stream reservoir, to be known as the Reuter-Hess Reservoir, would be located on Newlin Gulch and include a diversion structure along Cherry Creek. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives include the proposed 16,200-acre-foot reservoir and an 11,200-acre-foot reservoir alternative. The larger reservoir would be created behind a 5,300-foot-long, 135-foot-high dam. Additional structures would include two pipelines, a water treatment plant, a booster pump station, and a diversion structure and pump station along Cherry Creek, and 16 Denver Basin extraction wellfields. The average annual yield from the reservoir would be 4,218 acre-feet. The 11,200 acre-foot reservoir, which would be created along the same dam axis as the larger reservoir, would require a 5,000-foot-long, 123-foot-high dam and the development of 17 Denver Basin wellfields. The diversion facilities along Cherry Creek would be identical to those for the larger reservoir. The average annual yield from the reservoir would be 3,448 acre-feet. Either reservoir would be capable for capturing, reusing, and storing seasonal high flows in Cherry Creek and also capable of capturing and reusing advanced wastewater treatment return flows currently discharged to Cherry Creek. Under the No Action Alternative, the PWSD would pump all of its Denver Basin aquifer appropriations on a yearly basin, requiring the construction of a pump station and chlorination plant and development of wellfields and related facilities in the Denver Basin. Estimated costs of the proposed reservoir and the smaller reservoir are $99.4 million and $99.0 million, respectively. Estimated costs of the facilities required under the NO Action Alternative amount to $225 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safe, adequate, and sustainable municipal water supply to the PWSD. The water supply would be capable of meeting a portion of peak demand within the District's legal boundary for the next 50 years; the current projected build-out for the water distribution and supply system is 23,840 single-family equivalents, or approximately 85,000 residents. The reservoir would greatly reduce the number of Denver Basin wellfields required for the PWSD. Hence, the project would help conserve groundwater in the area. The reservoir could provide opportunities for recreational boating, swimming, fishing, hiking, camping, and picnicking. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed reservoir would inundate 470 acres of land, while the smaller reservoir would inundate 370 acres of land. Respective soil losses would affect 698 acres and 576 acres, and respective habitat losses would occur on 704 and 582 acres. The reservoir and associated water delivery system would displace 6.7 acres of wetlands and five miles of other waters of the US, though 11.2 acres of new wetlands would be created as mitigation. In addition to wetlands, the project would displace riparian, shrub, and prairie habitat. Though the reservoir would help conserve groundwater, groundwater levels would continue to decline. The 100-year floodplain below the dam would be significantly reduced. One archaeological site that is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be inundated, and another potentially eligible site could be affected by recreational activities associated with the reservoir. The Cherry Creek Regional Trail would have to be relocated. The existing prairie and foothills shurbland landscape would be altered entirely due to inundation of the area behind the dam. 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 02-0230D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030315, Volume I (Final EIS)--589 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--397 pages and maps, July 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347745?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUETER-HESS+RESERVOIR%2C+DOUGLAS+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RUETER-HESS+RESERVOIR%2C+DOUGLAS+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUETER-HESS RESERVOIR, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - RUETER-HESS RESERVOIR, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 36347512; 10189-030315_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a reservoir and an associated water delivery system near the town of Parker in Douglas County, Colorado are proposed by the Parker Water and Sanitation District (PWSD). The off-stream reservoir, to be known as the Reuter-Hess Reservoir, would be located on Newlin Gulch and include a diversion structure along Cherry Creek. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives include the proposed 16,200-acre-foot reservoir and an 11,200-acre-foot reservoir alternative. The larger reservoir would be created behind a 5,300-foot-long, 135-foot-high dam. Additional structures would include two pipelines, a water treatment plant, a booster pump station, and a diversion structure and pump station along Cherry Creek, and 16 Denver Basin extraction wellfields. The average annual yield from the reservoir would be 4,218 acre-feet. The 11,200 acre-foot reservoir, which would be created along the same dam axis as the larger reservoir, would require a 5,000-foot-long, 123-foot-high dam and the development of 17 Denver Basin wellfields. The diversion facilities along Cherry Creek would be identical to those for the larger reservoir. The average annual yield from the reservoir would be 3,448 acre-feet. Either reservoir would be capable for capturing, reusing, and storing seasonal high flows in Cherry Creek and also capable of capturing and reusing advanced wastewater treatment return flows currently discharged to Cherry Creek. Under the No Action Alternative, the PWSD would pump all of its Denver Basin aquifer appropriations on a yearly basin, requiring the construction of a pump station and chlorination plant and development of wellfields and related facilities in the Denver Basin. Estimated costs of the proposed reservoir and the smaller reservoir are $99.4 million and $99.0 million, respectively. Estimated costs of the facilities required under the NO Action Alternative amount to $225 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safe, adequate, and sustainable municipal water supply to the PWSD. The water supply would be capable of meeting a portion of peak demand within the District's legal boundary for the next 50 years; the current projected build-out for the water distribution and supply system is 23,840 single-family equivalents, or approximately 85,000 residents. The reservoir would greatly reduce the number of Denver Basin wellfields required for the PWSD. Hence, the project would help conserve groundwater in the area. The reservoir could provide opportunities for recreational boating, swimming, fishing, hiking, camping, and picnicking. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed reservoir would inundate 470 acres of land, while the smaller reservoir would inundate 370 acres of land. Respective soil losses would affect 698 acres and 576 acres, and respective habitat losses would occur on 704 and 582 acres. The reservoir and associated water delivery system would displace 6.7 acres of wetlands and five miles of other waters of the US, though 11.2 acres of new wetlands would be created as mitigation. In addition to wetlands, the project would displace riparian, shrub, and prairie habitat. Though the reservoir would help conserve groundwater, groundwater levels would continue to decline. The 100-year floodplain below the dam would be significantly reduced. One archaeological site that is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be inundated, and another potentially eligible site could be affected by recreational activities associated with the reservoir. The Cherry Creek Regional Trail would have to be relocated. The existing prairie and foothills shurbland landscape would be altered entirely due to inundation of the area behind the dam. 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 02-0230D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030315, Volume I (Final EIS)--589 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--397 pages and maps, July 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUETER-HESS+RESERVOIR%2C+DOUGLAS+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RUETER-HESS+RESERVOIR%2C+DOUGLAS+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUETER-HESS RESERVOIR, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 16348399; 10189 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a reservoir and an associated water delivery system near the town of Parker in Douglas County, Colorado are proposed by the Parker Water and Sanitation District (PWSD). The off-stream reservoir, to be known as the Reuter-Hess Reservoir, would be located on Newlin Gulch and include a diversion structure along Cherry Creek. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Action alternatives include the proposed 16,200-acre-foot reservoir and an 11,200-acre-foot reservoir alternative. The larger reservoir would be created behind a 5,300-foot-long, 135-foot-high dam. Additional structures would include two pipelines, a water treatment plant, a booster pump station, and a diversion structure and pump station along Cherry Creek, and 16 Denver Basin extraction wellfields. The average annual yield from the reservoir would be 4,218 acre-feet. The 11,200 acre-foot reservoir, which would be created along the same dam axis as the larger reservoir, would require a 5,000-foot-long, 123-foot-high dam and the development of 17 Denver Basin wellfields. The diversion facilities along Cherry Creek would be identical to those for the larger reservoir. The average annual yield from the reservoir would be 3,448 acre-feet. Either reservoir would be capable for capturing, reusing, and storing seasonal high flows in Cherry Creek and also capable of capturing and reusing advanced wastewater treatment return flows currently discharged to Cherry Creek. Under the No Action Alternative, the PWSD would pump all of its Denver Basin aquifer appropriations on a yearly basin, requiring the construction of a pump station and chlorination plant and development of wellfields and related facilities in the Denver Basin. Estimated costs of the proposed reservoir and the smaller reservoir are $99.4 million and $99.0 million, respectively. Estimated costs of the facilities required under the NO Action Alternative amount to $225 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safe, adequate, and sustainable municipal water supply to the PWSD. The water supply would be capable of meeting a portion of peak demand within the District's legal boundary for the next 50 years; the current projected build-out for the water distribution and supply system is 23,840 single-family equivalents, or approximately 85,000 residents. The reservoir would greatly reduce the number of Denver Basin wellfields required for the PWSD. Hence, the project would help conserve groundwater in the area. The reservoir could provide opportunities for recreational boating, swimming, fishing, hiking, camping, and picnicking. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed reservoir would inundate 470 acres of land, while the smaller reservoir would inundate 370 acres of land. Respective soil losses would affect 698 acres and 576 acres, and respective habitat losses would occur on 704 and 582 acres. The reservoir and associated water delivery system would displace 6.7 acres of wetlands and five miles of other waters of the US, though 11.2 acres of new wetlands would be created as mitigation. In addition to wetlands, the project would displace riparian, shrub, and prairie habitat. Though the reservoir would help conserve groundwater, groundwater levels would continue to decline. The 100-year floodplain below the dam would be significantly reduced. One archaeological site that is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places would be inundated, and another potentially eligible site could be affected by recreational activities associated with the reservoir. The Cherry Creek Regional Trail would have to be relocated. The existing prairie and foothills shurbland landscape would be altered entirely due to inundation of the area behind the dam. 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 02-0230D, Volume 26, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030315, Volume I (Final EIS)--589 pages and maps, Volume II (Appendices)--397 pages and maps, July 3, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Floodplains KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16348399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RUETER-HESS+RESERVOIR%2C+DOUGLAS+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=RUETER-HESS+RESERVOIR%2C+DOUGLAS+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTERNATIVE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE LOWER RIO GRANDE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, CAMERON, HIDALGO, AND WILLACY COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 15228863; 10310 AB - PURPOSE: Revision of the vegetation maintenance activities of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) within the US portion of the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP), Texas is proposed. The 43,210-acre US portion of the LRGFCP is located in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy counties. The vegetation maintenance program was established to fulfill the US government's obligations under the IBWC Minutes Nos. 212 and 238 and to protect life and properties in the US and Mexico from Rio Grande floods. Key issues identified during scoping include those associated with biological resources (which focus on habitat for ocelot, jaguarundi, Walker's manioc, Texas ayenia, and South Texas ambrosia), socioeconomics, environmental justice, land use, water resources, cultural resources, soils and geologic resources, hazardous materials, air quality, and noise. Four alternatives, including a Continued Maintenance (No Action) Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. All alternatives address areas falling between river mile (RM) 28 and RM 186. The Continued Maintenance Alternative, which is the preferred alterative, would continue the current vegetation management practices developed by the US IBWC for the 1993 biological assessment prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This alternative would assume expansion of the area of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Vegetation would be maintained within 75 feet of the river between RM 28 and RM 62.5, and maintenance activities would cover an estimated 291 acres. A 33-foot-wide wildlife travel corridor would be established and maintained landward of the 75-foot maintenance strip. POSITIVE IMPACTS: None of the nine key issue resources would be affected by the preferred alternative. The plan would ensure the protection of habitat for key species and other wildlife and plants, while flood control and other socioeconomic benefits redounding from the current vegetation maintenance plan would continue unimpeded. A wildlife corridor covering approximately 57 acres would be established. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives other than the preferred alternative would use shifts in wildlife guilds as a result of habitat changes, affecting 12 to 42 acres of habitat for threatened and endangered ocelot and jaguarundi. The magnitude of flooding events would be reduced under one of the nonpreferred alternatives; this benefit would not be realized under the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative would not establish the largest wildlife corridor possible (314 acres) under the alternatives considered. JF - EPA number: 030312, Volume I--244 pages, Volume II--671 pages and maps, Volume III--41 pages and maps, July 3, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - International Programs KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Mexico KW - Rio Grande KW - Texas UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15228863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTERNATIVE+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PRACTICES+FOR+THE+LOWER+RIO+GRANDE+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+WILLACY+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=ALTERNATIVE+VEGETATION+MANAGEMENT+PRACTICES+FOR+THE+LOWER+RIO+GRANDE+FLOOD+CONTROL+PROJECT%2C+CAMERON%2C+HIDALGO%2C+AND+WILLACY+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 and Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - RDX loss in a surface soil under saturated and well drained conditions. AN - 73658870; 12931878 AB - On military training ranges, low-order, incomplete detonations deposit RDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine) into surface soils. In this study, we evaluated RDX biodegradation in surface soils obtained from a military training range in Alaska. Two factors were compared: (i) soil water potential during the incubations; and (ii) the use of acetonitrile (ACN) as an RDX carrier to spike samples. Organic solvents have been used in laboratory studies to dissolve slightly water-soluble contaminants before addition to soil. We added ACN to obtain final soil ACN concentrations of 0 mg kg(-1) (0%), 1000 mg kg(-1) (0.1%) and 10 000 mg kg(-1) (1%). We then compared RDX attenuation in the soil under saturated and unsaturated conditions. RDX fell below the limit of detection within 3 wk of study initiation under the saturated condition. A maximum degradation rate of 0.15 mg RDX L(-1) d(-1) was measured. Under the unsaturated condition, 42% of the original RDX was still present at study termination (5 wk). The addition of acetonitrile at 0.1 or 1.0% had no affect on RDX loss in the saturated soil. In the unsaturated soil, however, ACN at 1.0% inhibited RDX loss by as much as 25%. These findings indicate that soil water potential and carrier solvent concentrations can impact the rate and extent to which RDX is attenuated in a surface soil. JF - Journal of environmental quality AU - Ringelberg, D B AU - Reynolds, C M AU - Walsh, M E AU - Jenkins, T F AD - U.S. Army ERDC-CRREL, 72 Lyme Rd., Hanover, NH 03755, USA. David.B.Ringelberg@erdc.usace.army.mil PY - 2003 SP - 1244 EP - 1249 VL - 32 IS - 4 SN - 0047-2425, 0047-2425 KW - Acetonitriles KW - 0 KW - Rodenticides KW - Soil Pollutants KW - Triazines KW - Water KW - 059QF0KO0R KW - cyclonite KW - W91SSV5831 KW - acetonitrile KW - Z072SB282N KW - Index Medicus KW - Environmental Monitoring KW - Soil Microbiology KW - Reproducibility of Results KW - Biodegradation, Environmental KW - Acetonitriles -- chemistry KW - Rodenticides -- metabolism KW - Soil Pollutants -- metabolism KW - Triazines -- metabolism UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/73658870?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+environmental+quality&rft.atitle=RDX+loss+in+a+surface+soil+under+saturated+and+well+drained+conditions.&rft.au=Ringelberg%2C+D+B%3BReynolds%2C+C+M%3BWalsh%2C+M+E%3BJenkins%2C+T+F&rft.aulast=Ringelberg&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1244&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+environmental+quality&rft.issn=00472425&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2003-11-06 N1 - Date created - 2003-08-22 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE/INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AND BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE/INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AND BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36348634; 10183-030308_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a connection between the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 286 (I-296)) and I-95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and Burlington County, New Jersey is proposed. The study corridor limits along I-276 extend approximately 9.2 miles from just west of Interchange 20 in the Bensalem Township in Pennsylvania, across the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge into the Burlington and Florence Townships of New Jersey. The study limits along I-95 extend 3.2 miles from just south of Trenton Road in Middletown, Pennsylvania to the east bank of Neshaminy Creek in Bristol. Currently, no adequate linkage is available and system continuity is poor; this affects system continuity throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. Facilities between the two interstates also lack adequate capacity, as do the interstates themselves. The project would involve construction of a high-speed, fully directional interchange connecting the interstate. The project would also involve relocation of a Pennsylvania Turnpike toll plaza (Interchange 30), widening of I-276 from four to six lanes between Interchange 20 and the Delaware River, and construction of an additional parallel bridge across the Delaware River. I-95 would be widened to accommodate ramps and merge lanes resulting from construction of the interchange. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, two alternatives each for the toll plaza element, interchange element, and Delaware River Bridge were carried forward for consideration in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would involve placement of interchange ramps to make direct connections between I-95 and I-276, including ramps that "fly over" both interstates, construction of the new parallel Delaware River Bridge to the south of the existing bridge. and provision of a standard side-by-side plaza configuration that incorporates the E-ZPass electronic system for regular turnpike users. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $640 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safe, efficient, high-capacity linkage between the two interstates, improving north-south and east-west movements on the interstates. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would displace 11 residences, 10 businesses, two institutional facilities, and an electrical transmission substation. In addition, the project would affect 3.3 acres of wetlands, 5.53 acres of floodplain, 26.82 acres of forested land, 5.88 acres of rangeland, 4,241 feet of perennial stream, and 4,923 feet of intermittent stream. Less than one-tenth of one acre would be taken from Black Ditch Park, and portions of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would also be taken. The project could affect one federally protected species and 10 state-protected species. Three potentially significant archaeological sites would be disturbed. Construction activities would encounter 27 sites potentially containing contaminated waste. 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.), 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 01-0318D, Volume 25, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030308, 361 pages (oversized, July 1, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-01-02-F KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+TURNPIKE%2FINTERSTATE+95+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+BUCKS+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+BURLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+TURNPIKE%2FINTERSTATE+95+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+BUCKS+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+BURLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - Susquehanna River Flood Warning and Response System AN - 19453640; 7399731 AB - The Philadelphia District and the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have developed a Flood Warning and Response System (FWRS) for 110 miles of the main stem of the Susquehanna River in northeast Pennsylvania. The objective of the flood warning system is to provide accurate and timely warnings in order to maximize response time for floodplain residents and emergency managers while also creating a floodplain management and planning tool for the region. The project incorporates aerial photography, terrain elevation data, channel geometry, demographic and structural data, transportation systems, and a hydraulic model to create an automated and interactive flood inundation mapping application using Geographic Information Systems technology. The HEC developed an HEC-RAS hydraulic model for the complete project area. Geometric data for the model was developed using HEC-GeoRAS and a digital terrain model of the system. A database of structures within the floodplain, and their corresponding dollar values, was put together by the Philadelphia District office. The FWRS calculates damage to single or groups of structures, predefined impact areas, or counties for a given event. Additionally, users can bring up an Impact Response Table, which contains a listing of people to contact and actions to be taken given the forecasted water surface elevations. The HEC developed the FWRS software using ArcGIS 8.x. The functionality of the FWRS is based on the user entering river stages at any of the four stream gages located within the project area. JF - Project Reports. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center AU - Brunner, G W AU - Jensen, M R AU - Ackerman, C T AU - Needham, J AU - Dunn, C N Y1 - 2003/07// PY - 2003 DA - July 2003 SP - 37 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Flood warning systems KW - Hydraulic models KW - Aerial photography KW - Freshwater KW - Hydrologic Models KW - Floods KW - Structural Engineering KW - Hydrologic Data KW - Rivers KW - USA, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia KW - Hydraulic Models KW - River stages KW - River discharge KW - Warning systems KW - Flood Plains KW - Channels KW - Automated cartography KW - USA, Maryland, Susquehanna R. KW - Flood plains KW - USA, Pennsylvania KW - Elevation KW - Floodplain management KW - Emergencies KW - Hydrologic engineering KW - Q2 09171:Dynamics of lakes and rivers KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process KW - M2 556.16:Runoff (556.16) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19453640?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=Brunner%2C+G+W%3BJensen%2C+M+R%3BAckerman%2C+C+T%3BNeedham%2C+J%3BDunn%2C+C+N&rft.aulast=Brunner&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=37&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Susquehanna+River+Flood+Warning+and+Response+System&rft.title=Susquehanna+River+Flood+Warning+and+Response+System&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-06-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - POTAM (Version 1.0): A Simulation Model for Growth of Sago Pondweed AN - 19446010; 7189976 AB - This manual has been written as a practical guide for the operational use of POTAM (Version 1.0), a personal-computer-based software package that simulates growth of Sago pondweed. This manual includes instruction for installing and using the POTAM software package as well as example runs to provide further information to facilitate proper execution and to demonstrate applications. JF - Special Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory AU - Best, EPH AU - Boyd, WA Y1 - 2003/07// PY - 2003 DA - July 2003 KW - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Growth rate KW - Computer programs KW - Growth KW - Sago Pondweed KW - Mathematical models KW - Laboratories KW - Aquatic plants KW - Research KW - Freshwater KW - Freshwater weeds KW - Model Studies KW - Q1 08424:Age and growth KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19446010?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%3BBoyd%2C+WA&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=EPH&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=POTAM+%28Version+1.0%29%3A+A+Simulation+Model+for+Growth+of+Sago+Pondweed&rft.title=POTAM+%28Version+1.0%29%3A+A+Simulation+Model+for+Growth+of+Sago+Pondweed&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 - A Simulation Model for Growth of the Submersed Aquatic Macrophyte Sago Pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus L.) AN - 19440991; 7173658 AB - A simulation model for biomass dynamics of the submersed macrophyte Potamogeton pectinatus L. is presented. The model (POTAM) is based on carbon flow through the vegetation in meter-squared (m super(2)) water columns. It includes descriptions of several factors that affect biomass dynamics, such as site characteristic changes in climate, temperature, water transparency, water level, pH, and oxygen effects on CO sub(2) assimilation rate at light saturation, wintering strategies, mechanical control (removal of shoot biomass), and grazing. The characteristics of community and site can be easily modified by the user. POTAM incorporates insight into the processes affecting the dynamics of a sago pondweed community in relatively shallow, hard water (0.1 - to 6-m depth; dissolved inorganic carbon concentration > 0.8 mmol and pH > 6), under ample supply of nitrogen and phosphorus in a pest-, disease-, and competitor-free environment under the prevailing weather conditions. It has been calibrated on data pertaining to a sago pondweed community in the Western Canal near Zandvoort, The Netherlands. At this site, growth starts from the subterranean tubers alone. Plant biomass usually peaks once a year, in July, and intensive downward transport of soluble carbohydrates occurs after anthesis, used for the formation of tubers that grow into the sediment. POTAM simulated the dynamics of plant and tuber biomass and tuber numbers in the Western Canal near Zandvoort, The Netherlands, well over a period of 1 to 5 years. Starting from measured instead of nominal tuber size increased the similarity between simulated and measured plant data. The importance of several plant species-characteristic properties was explored, namely, of leaf surface:dry weight ratio, tuber bank density, anchorage depth, and presence/absence of wintering shoots. The model has been used to calculate plant and tuber biomass and tuber numbers for other sites as well. In Lake Veluwe, The Netherlands, a site with a temperate climate, simulated plant biomass and newly produced tuber densities were similar to measured ones in two consecutive years, but timing in the simulated plants was delayed the second year. In the Byrnes Canal, California, with a far warmer temperate climate, simulated plant biomass and tuber bank density were similar to measured values when a lower self-shading coefficient than the nominal one and the same tuber size/tuber number per plant as measured were used. However, plant biomass and tuber bank density were lower with the nominal self-shading coefficient. In the tropical Lake Ramgarh, India, a simulated peak plant biomass similar to measured was found using the same lower self-shading coefficient as run for the California site, and almost no tubers were formed. Verification of simulated with measured tuber numbers was not possible, since tubers had not been measured. Several case studies are presented in which POTAM generated insight useful for management aimed at conserving or controlling sago pondweed populations. The model was used to calculate the tentative effects on sago pondweed populations of (a) water level fluctuations, including floods and droughts, in the Upper Mississippi River; and (b) plant and tuber mass removal by cutting or grazing. Sensitivity analysis showed that maximum plant biomass is most sensitive to a change in photosynthetic activity at light saturation but not to a change in light use efficiency. Maximum plant biomass was also strongly affected by changes in pre-anthesis development rate. End-of-year tuber number was sensitive to 7 out of the 9 parameters tested. Sensitivity was greatest to changes in pre-anthesis development rate. Effects of changes in environmental factors were analyzed by applying the same method as used for sensitivity analysis. Maximum plant biomass and end-of-year tuber number proved to be sensitive to changes in climate. The model can be used as a tool to predict the dynamics of a sago pondweed community over 1 - to 5-year periods. Running the model with different parameter values specific for any particular site and/or treatment helps in gaining insight into the predominant mechanisms regulating submersed plant dynamics. JF - Technical Reports. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory AU - Best, EPH AU - Boyd, WA Y1 - 2003/07// PY - 2003 DA - July 2003 KW - ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Potamogeton pectinatus KW - Climatic changes KW - Population density KW - Netherlands, Veluwe L. KW - Environmental factors KW - India KW - Water levels KW - Carbon KW - Banks KW - Climatic Changes KW - USA, California KW - Netherlands KW - Abiotic factors KW - Grazing KW - Overwintering KW - Density KW - Climates KW - Aquatic plants KW - Biomass KW - Model Studies KW - Light effects KW - Canals KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Sago Pondweed KW - USA, Alaska, Anchorage KW - Q1 08484:Species interactions: parasites and diseases KW - SW 6010:Structures UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/19440991?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%3BBoyd%2C+WA&rft.aulast=Best&rft.aufirst=EPH&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=A+Simulation+Model+for+Growth+of+the+Submersed+Aquatic+Macrophyte+Sago+Pondweed+%28Potamogeton+pectinatus+L.%29&rft.title=A+Simulation+Model+for+Growth+of+the+Submersed+Aquatic+Macrophyte+Sago+Pondweed+%28Potamogeton+pectinatus+L.%29&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 - Longevity and Persistence of Triploid Grass Carp Stocked into the Santee Cooper Reservoirs of South Carolina AN - 17879651; 5842240 AB - This study evaluated longevity and population persistence of 768,500 triploid grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella Valenciennes) stocked in the 70,000-ha Santee Cooper system in South Carolina from 1989 through 1996 to control hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle). Collected from 1998 through 2002, the oldest of 477 fish were age 11. Total annual mortality rates ranged from 22% to 39% meaning 10% of a cohort could persist for 5 to 9 years. Longevity and persistence measured in this study demonstrate that benefits of aquatic plant control and risks to non-target organisms need to be carefully balanced. Annual stocking of as many as 150,000 could potentially leave numerous fish in this system for almost a decade. Conversely, control of hydrilla, achieved since 1997, is unlikely to last more than few more years. JF - Journal of Aquatic Plant Management AU - Kirk, J P AU - Socha, R C AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA Y1 - 2003/07// PY - 2003 DA - Jul 2003 SP - 90 EP - 92 PB - Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc., PO Box 1477 Lehigh Acres FL 33970 USA VL - 41 IS - 2 SN - 0146-6623, 0146-6623 KW - Grass carp KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Ctenopharyngodon idella KW - Biological control KW - Mortality KW - Fish Stocking KW - Stocking (organisms) KW - Biocontrol KW - Aquatic plants KW - Aquatic Weed Control KW - Pest control KW - Freshwater KW - Freshwater fish KW - Hydrilla verticillata KW - Carp KW - USA, South Carolina KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Aquatic macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae) KW - Reservoirs KW - Benefits KW - Mortality causes KW - Q1 08485:Species interactions: pests and control KW - SW 2010:Control of water on the surface UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17879651?accountid=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+Aquatic+Plant+Management&rft.atitle=Longevity+and+Persistence+of+Triploid+Grass+Carp+Stocked+into+the+Santee+Cooper+Reservoirs+of+South+Carolina&rft.au=Kirk%2C+J+P%3BSocha%2C+R+C&rft.aulast=Kirk&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=90&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 - 2010-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Biological control; Stocking (organisms); Aquatic plants; Pest control; Freshwater fish; Mortality causes; Fish Stocking; Mortality; Carp; Aquatic Plants; Biocontrol; Aquatic Weed Control; Aquatic macrophytes (Hydrocharitaceae); Benefits; Reservoirs; Ctenopharyngodon idella; Hydrilla verticillata; USA, South Carolina; Freshwater ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Effects of Triclopyr on Variable-Leaf Watermilfoil AN - 16172120; 5842246 JF - Journal of Aquatic Plant Management AU - Getsinger, K D AU - Sprecher, S L AU - Smagula AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, Kurt.D.Getsinger@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2003/07// PY - 2003 DA - Jul 2003 SP - 124 EP - 126 PB - Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc., PO Box 1477 Lehigh Acres FL 33970 USA VL - 41 IS - 2 SN - 0146-6623, 0146-6623 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources KW - Aquatic Plants KW - Plant control KW - Pesticides KW - Aquatic plants KW - Herbicides KW - Aquatic Weed Control KW - Pest control KW - Introduced species KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - Q1 08485:Species interactions: pests and control UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16172120?accountid=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+Aquatic+Plant+Management&rft.atitle=Effects+of+Triclopyr+on+Variable-Leaf+Watermilfoil&rft.au=Getsinger%2C+K+D%3BSprecher%2C+S+L%3BSmagula&rft.aulast=Getsinger&rft.aufirst=K&rft.date=2003-07-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=124&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 - 2005-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Plant control; Pesticides; Aquatic plants; Pest control; Introduced species; Aquatic Plants; Aquatic Weed Control; Herbicides ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE/INTERSTATE 95 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AND BURLINGTON COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 15229185; 10183 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a connection between the Pennsylvania Turnpike (Interstate 286 (I-296)) and I-95 in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and Burlington County, New Jersey is proposed. The study corridor limits along I-276 extend approximately 9.2 miles from just west of Interchange 20 in the Bensalem Township in Pennsylvania, across the Delaware River Turnpike Bridge into the Burlington and Florence Townships of New Jersey. The study limits along I-95 extend 3.2 miles from just south of Trenton Road in Middletown, Pennsylvania to the east bank of Neshaminy Creek in Bristol. Currently, no adequate linkage is available and system continuity is poor; this affects system continuity throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. Facilities between the two interstates also lack adequate capacity, as do the interstates themselves. The project would involve construction of a high-speed, fully directional interchange connecting the interstate. The project would also involve relocation of a Pennsylvania Turnpike toll plaza (Interchange 30), widening of I-276 from four to six lanes between Interchange 20 and the Delaware River, and construction of an additional parallel bridge across the Delaware River. I-95 would be widened to accommodate ramps and merge lanes resulting from construction of the interchange. In addition to a No-Build Alternative, two alternatives each for the toll plaza element, interchange element, and Delaware River Bridge were carried forward for consideration in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would involve placement of interchange ramps to make direct connections between I-95 and I-276, including ramps that "fly over" both interstates, construction of the new parallel Delaware River Bridge to the south of the existing bridge. and provision of a standard side-by-side plaza configuration that incorporates the E-ZPass electronic system for regular turnpike users. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $640 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide a safe, efficient, high-capacity linkage between the two interstates, improving north-south and east-west movements on the interstates. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way developments would displace 11 residences, 10 businesses, two institutional facilities, and an electrical transmission substation. In addition, the project would affect 3.3 acres of wetlands, 5.53 acres of floodplain, 26.82 acres of forested land, 5.88 acres of rangeland, 4,241 feet of perennial stream, and 4,923 feet of intermittent stream. Less than one-tenth of one acre would be taken from Black Ditch Park, and portions of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would also be taken. The project could affect one federally protected species and 10 state-protected species. Three potentially significant archaeological sites would be disturbed. Construction activities would encounter 27 sites potentially containing contaminated waste. 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.), 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 01-0318D, Volume 25, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030308, 361 pages (oversized, July 1, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PA-EIS-01-02-F KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Ranges KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Wetlands KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15229185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PENNSYLVANIA+TURNPIKE%2FINTERSTATE+95+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+BUCKS+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+BURLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=PENNSYLVANIA+TURNPIKE%2FINTERSTATE+95+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+BUCKS+COUNTY%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+BURLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSFORMATION OF U.S ARMY, FORTS WAINWRIGHT AND RICHARDSON, ALASKA. AN - 15229147; 10181 AB - PURPOSE: The transformation of the 172nd Infantry Brigade (Separate) (172nd SIB) at forts Wainwright and Richardson, Alaska into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team is proposed. Generally, the Army has proposed to transform the current Legacy Force to an Objective Force over the next 30 years. The "Army Vision" is to transform its force structure to be substantially more responsible, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable that the current force structure. This transformation would affect most aspects of the Army's doctrine, training, leader development, organization, installations, materiel, and soldiers. The 172nd SIB was selected for transformation as part of this overall program because its location and current structure are compatible with the Army Vision. The minimal transformation standards that the proposed action must meet include proximity to critical areas of interest for the United States, the capability to execute the full spectrum of military missions, and a close association with sea and air bases in the area. Minimum requirements for transformation include provision of training infrastructure to sustain combat readiness, provision of infrastructure to meet rapid deployment requirements, provision of unmanned aerial vehicle support and maintenance facilities, provision of a port staging area for Stryker Brigade Combat Team sea deployment, and provision of support for interim and future Army transformation requirements. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to access to affected areas by recreationists, traffic levels, wildlife habitat, maneuvers, fire management, and cultural resources. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Each alternative would include components for stationing, construction, training, systems acquisition, deployment, and institutional matters; all action alternatives would also include an impacts mitigation component. Alternative 2 would require no new infrastructure. The transformation would be implemented by May 2005. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The transformation would strengthen the capabilities of the 172nd SIB to allow it to provide a full spectrum of force without compromising its ability to respond quickly. In addition, transformation would provide critical information for the long-term deployment of the Objective Force. Alternative 2 would have no environmental impacts due to the lack of new infrastructure development under this alternative. Development costs would add approximately $230 million to the local economy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of infrastructure and training maneuvers would disturb and /or compact soils, potentially resulting in sedimentation of surface flows, and groundwater resources could be affected by increased consumption and construction and training activities. Wetlands and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Fire management could be hampered by changes in stationing and training. Public access, including access for hunters, fishermen, and other recreationists, would be affected by various activities association with the transformation, as would subsistence activities and other activities of Alaskan Natives. Noise levels would increase due to construction and training activities. The transformation would increase the level of hazardous materials in the area. Archaeological and historic sites could be affected by infrastructure development as well as training activities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (49 U.S.C. 303). JF - EPA number: 030306, Draft EIS--612 pages, Appendices--389 pages and maps, July 1, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Aircraft KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Fire Protection KW - Historic Sites KW - Indian Reservations KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Military Operations (Army) KW - Minorities KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Soils KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Fort Richardson, Alaska KW - Fort Wainwright, Alaska KW - National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/15229147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-07-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRANSFORMATION+OF+U.S+ARMY%2C+FORTS+WAINWRIGHT+AND+RICHARDSON%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=TRANSFORMATION+OF+U.S+ARMY%2C+FORTS+WAINWRIGHT+AND+RICHARDSON%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Washington, District of Columbia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 1, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY RESERVOIR OPERATIONS STUDY, TENNESSEE, ALABAMA, KENTUCKY, GEORGIA, MISSISSIPPI, NORTH CAROLINA, AND VIRGINIA. AN - 36413362; 10178 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the reservoir operations system applicable to impoundments administered by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia is proposed. The TVA administers a multi-purpose system that provides for he use, conservation, and development of water resources associated with the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. In carrying out this mission, TVA owns and operates a system of 49 dams and reservoirs and associated water control system facilities to reduce the risk of flooding, enable year-round navigation, supply affordable and reliable electricity, improve water quality and supply, provide recreational opportunities, stimulate economic growth, and provide a wide range of other public benefits. The last major review of the TVA system was completed in 1990; the proposed changes were approved in 1991. Eight policy alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, which would perpetuate the current operations system, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The action alternatives would change, to various degrees, reservoir levels and flows through the reservoir system and the seasonal timing of flows, resulting in a mixed suite of environmental and socioeconomic effects. Results of the analysis indicate that there may be sufficient flexibility in the reservoir system such that TVA's reservoir operations policy could be changed to achieve greater overall public value; however, changes in the current balance among objectives would involve significant tradeoffs, including the potential increase in flood damages and power costs. At the time of the publication of this draft EIS, TVA had not identified a preferred reservoir operations policy alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Proposed changes to the reservoir operations system could result in improvement of some or all of the abovementioned services provided to TVA beneficiaries. Cost containment would be a major consideration in evaluating each alternative. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Changes in certain services provided by the current reservoir operations system could result in decrements with respect to other services. Moreover, reservoir operations would continue to have impacts associated with large artificial impoundments, including serious impacts of impoundment fluctuations, as well as with alteration of downstream ecosystems due to dam release levels and the timing of releases. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030303, Draft EIS--885 pages, Appendices--401 pages, June 27, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alabama KW - Cumberland River KW - Georgia KW - Kentucky KW - Mississippi KW - North Carolina KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee River KW - Virginia KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36413362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-06-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TENNESSEE+VALLEY+AUTHORITY+RESERVOIR+OPERATIONS+STUDY%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+ALABAMA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+GEORGIA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=TENNESSEE+VALLEY+AUTHORITY+RESERVOIR+OPERATIONS+STUDY%2C+TENNESSEE%2C+ALABAMA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+GEORGIA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA%2C+AND+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; TVA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 27, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36436597; 10169 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36436597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 18 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36350569; 10169-030293_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 18 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 12 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36350514; 10169-030293_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 16 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36350402; 10169-030293_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 16 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36350143; 10169-030293_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 19 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36350105; 10169-030293_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 19 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 9 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36349944; 10169-030293_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36349731; 10170-030294_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project for Union Beach, Monmouth County, New Jersey is proposed. The borough of Union Beach, located on the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay shorelines and adjacent areas, has historically been affected by hurricanes, northeasters, and extratropical storms that damaged shorefronts, beaches, dunes, homes, commercial properties, building contents, and community infrastructure. Erosion of the beach and the lack of long-term shore protection measures have resulted in deterioration of the natural beachfront and dune complexes in the study area. Sever storm events cause tidal surges that enter Chingarora, Flat, and East creeks and quickly spread into floodplains and inundate the low-lying marshlands, stranding residents in their homes. Several structural and nonstructural alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The selected plan would provide for improvement components, one each addressing problems experienced by Chingarora Creek, Flat and East creeks, and the Bay Shore area. The Chingarora Creek component would consist of a levee and floodwall system beginning at the high ground (15 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum) near the intersection of Florence Avenue and Bank Street and ending at the northwestern end of the Bay Shore component. The Bay Shore component would consist of a beach and dune complex incorporating terminal grounds with adjoining revetments stretching from the Chingarora Creek levee/floodwall alignment to the southeastern limit of the dune, tying into the levee alignment near Flat Creek. The component addressing Flat and East creeks would consist of a floodwall and levee system beginning at the southeastern limit of the Bay Shore element and tying into the existing Keansburg levee at the eastern end of the study area. A small supplemental interior levee would protect the low-lying homes between East Creek and a tributary of East Creek, while allowing flooding of the adjacent wetlands for the full range of non-storm tidal conditions. In addition to the initial project components, the selected plan would provide for periodic renourishment of the Bay Shore beach/dune component. Material for initial beach and dune nourishment would be obtained from an authorized and permitted offshore source; approximately 688,000 cubic yards of material would be required. Each periodic nourishment would require 21,000 cubic yards of fill, which would be obtained from approved upland sites. First cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $91.3 million. The annualized cost for scheduled periodic nourishment of the Bay Shore component is estimated at $116,000. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.6. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide storm surge protection to residents, visitors, and commercial and institutional providers within Union Beach. In addition, beach and dune nourishment would prevent additional shoreline erosion, provide additional beach habitat, and increase the recreational value of the shoreline. The habitat of the federally protected piping plover, least tern, and seabeach amaranth as well as other shorebirds could result due to the increased beach habitat and increased habitat for horseshoe crabs, which provide food for migratory waterfowl species. The burial of pilings would increase ease of navigational access and improve navigational safety in the near-shore area. The placement of sand could protect unknown cultural resource sites along the shoreline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Placement of beach fill would smother benthos at the placement site and reduce near-shore benthic habitat somewhat; this impact, however, would not significantly affect the benthic communities in the area. Project activities would cause short-term, localized increases in turbidity and push subtidal and intertidal zones further offshore. The project would displace 8.39 acres of vegetated wetland, but this impact would be somewhat mitigated by the creation of 4.84 acres of vegetated wetland and other mitigation efforts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874), and Public Law 84-71. JF - EPA number: 030294, Volume 1--335 pages and maps, Volume 3--771 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Raritan Bay KW - Sandy Hook Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 84-71, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36349669; 10170-030294_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project for Union Beach, Monmouth County, New Jersey is proposed. The borough of Union Beach, located on the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay shorelines and adjacent areas, has historically been affected by hurricanes, northeasters, and extratropical storms that damaged shorefronts, beaches, dunes, homes, commercial properties, building contents, and community infrastructure. Erosion of the beach and the lack of long-term shore protection measures have resulted in deterioration of the natural beachfront and dune complexes in the study area. Sever storm events cause tidal surges that enter Chingarora, Flat, and East creeks and quickly spread into floodplains and inundate the low-lying marshlands, stranding residents in their homes. Several structural and nonstructural alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The selected plan would provide for improvement components, one each addressing problems experienced by Chingarora Creek, Flat and East creeks, and the Bay Shore area. The Chingarora Creek component would consist of a levee and floodwall system beginning at the high ground (15 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum) near the intersection of Florence Avenue and Bank Street and ending at the northwestern end of the Bay Shore component. The Bay Shore component would consist of a beach and dune complex incorporating terminal grounds with adjoining revetments stretching from the Chingarora Creek levee/floodwall alignment to the southeastern limit of the dune, tying into the levee alignment near Flat Creek. The component addressing Flat and East creeks would consist of a floodwall and levee system beginning at the southeastern limit of the Bay Shore element and tying into the existing Keansburg levee at the eastern end of the study area. A small supplemental interior levee would protect the low-lying homes between East Creek and a tributary of East Creek, while allowing flooding of the adjacent wetlands for the full range of non-storm tidal conditions. In addition to the initial project components, the selected plan would provide for periodic renourishment of the Bay Shore beach/dune component. Material for initial beach and dune nourishment would be obtained from an authorized and permitted offshore source; approximately 688,000 cubic yards of material would be required. Each periodic nourishment would require 21,000 cubic yards of fill, which would be obtained from approved upland sites. First cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $91.3 million. The annualized cost for scheduled periodic nourishment of the Bay Shore component is estimated at $116,000. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.6. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide storm surge protection to residents, visitors, and commercial and institutional providers within Union Beach. In addition, beach and dune nourishment would prevent additional shoreline erosion, provide additional beach habitat, and increase the recreational value of the shoreline. The habitat of the federally protected piping plover, least tern, and seabeach amaranth as well as other shorebirds could result due to the increased beach habitat and increased habitat for horseshoe crabs, which provide food for migratory waterfowl species. The burial of pilings would increase ease of navigational access and improve navigational safety in the near-shore area. The placement of sand could protect unknown cultural resource sites along the shoreline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Placement of beach fill would smother benthos at the placement site and reduce near-shore benthic habitat somewhat; this impact, however, would not significantly affect the benthic communities in the area. Project activities would cause short-term, localized increases in turbidity and push subtidal and intertidal zones further offshore. The project would displace 8.39 acres of vegetated wetland, but this impact would be somewhat mitigated by the creation of 4.84 acres of vegetated wetland and other mitigation efforts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874), and Public Law 84-71. JF - EPA number: 030294, Volume 1--335 pages and maps, Volume 3--771 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Raritan Bay KW - Sandy Hook Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 84-71, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 7 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36349601; 10169-030293_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 8 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36349265; 10169-030293_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 3 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36348563; 10169-030293_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348563?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36348536; 10170-030294_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project for Union Beach, Monmouth County, New Jersey is proposed. The borough of Union Beach, located on the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay shorelines and adjacent areas, has historically been affected by hurricanes, northeasters, and extratropical storms that damaged shorefronts, beaches, dunes, homes, commercial properties, building contents, and community infrastructure. Erosion of the beach and the lack of long-term shore protection measures have resulted in deterioration of the natural beachfront and dune complexes in the study area. Sever storm events cause tidal surges that enter Chingarora, Flat, and East creeks and quickly spread into floodplains and inundate the low-lying marshlands, stranding residents in their homes. Several structural and nonstructural alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The selected plan would provide for improvement components, one each addressing problems experienced by Chingarora Creek, Flat and East creeks, and the Bay Shore area. The Chingarora Creek component would consist of a levee and floodwall system beginning at the high ground (15 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum) near the intersection of Florence Avenue and Bank Street and ending at the northwestern end of the Bay Shore component. The Bay Shore component would consist of a beach and dune complex incorporating terminal grounds with adjoining revetments stretching from the Chingarora Creek levee/floodwall alignment to the southeastern limit of the dune, tying into the levee alignment near Flat Creek. The component addressing Flat and East creeks would consist of a floodwall and levee system beginning at the southeastern limit of the Bay Shore element and tying into the existing Keansburg levee at the eastern end of the study area. A small supplemental interior levee would protect the low-lying homes between East Creek and a tributary of East Creek, while allowing flooding of the adjacent wetlands for the full range of non-storm tidal conditions. In addition to the initial project components, the selected plan would provide for periodic renourishment of the Bay Shore beach/dune component. Material for initial beach and dune nourishment would be obtained from an authorized and permitted offshore source; approximately 688,000 cubic yards of material would be required. Each periodic nourishment would require 21,000 cubic yards of fill, which would be obtained from approved upland sites. First cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $91.3 million. The annualized cost for scheduled periodic nourishment of the Bay Shore component is estimated at $116,000. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.6. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide storm surge protection to residents, visitors, and commercial and institutional providers within Union Beach. In addition, beach and dune nourishment would prevent additional shoreline erosion, provide additional beach habitat, and increase the recreational value of the shoreline. The habitat of the federally protected piping plover, least tern, and seabeach amaranth as well as other shorebirds could result due to the increased beach habitat and increased habitat for horseshoe crabs, which provide food for migratory waterfowl species. The burial of pilings would increase ease of navigational access and improve navigational safety in the near-shore area. The placement of sand could protect unknown cultural resource sites along the shoreline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Placement of beach fill would smother benthos at the placement site and reduce near-shore benthic habitat somewhat; this impact, however, would not significantly affect the benthic communities in the area. Project activities would cause short-term, localized increases in turbidity and push subtidal and intertidal zones further offshore. The project would displace 8.39 acres of vegetated wetland, but this impact would be somewhat mitigated by the creation of 4.84 acres of vegetated wetland and other mitigation efforts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874), and Public Law 84-71. JF - EPA number: 030294, Volume 1--335 pages and maps, Volume 3--771 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Raritan Bay KW - Sandy Hook Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 84-71, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 5 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36348535; 10169-030293_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 6 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36348350; 10169-030293_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36348246; 10169-030293_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 36347968; 10170-030294_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project for Union Beach, Monmouth County, New Jersey is proposed. The borough of Union Beach, located on the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay shorelines and adjacent areas, has historically been affected by hurricanes, northeasters, and extratropical storms that damaged shorefronts, beaches, dunes, homes, commercial properties, building contents, and community infrastructure. Erosion of the beach and the lack of long-term shore protection measures have resulted in deterioration of the natural beachfront and dune complexes in the study area. Sever storm events cause tidal surges that enter Chingarora, Flat, and East creeks and quickly spread into floodplains and inundate the low-lying marshlands, stranding residents in their homes. Several structural and nonstructural alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The selected plan would provide for improvement components, one each addressing problems experienced by Chingarora Creek, Flat and East creeks, and the Bay Shore area. The Chingarora Creek component would consist of a levee and floodwall system beginning at the high ground (15 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum) near the intersection of Florence Avenue and Bank Street and ending at the northwestern end of the Bay Shore component. The Bay Shore component would consist of a beach and dune complex incorporating terminal grounds with adjoining revetments stretching from the Chingarora Creek levee/floodwall alignment to the southeastern limit of the dune, tying into the levee alignment near Flat Creek. The component addressing Flat and East creeks would consist of a floodwall and levee system beginning at the southeastern limit of the Bay Shore element and tying into the existing Keansburg levee at the eastern end of the study area. A small supplemental interior levee would protect the low-lying homes between East Creek and a tributary of East Creek, while allowing flooding of the adjacent wetlands for the full range of non-storm tidal conditions. In addition to the initial project components, the selected plan would provide for periodic renourishment of the Bay Shore beach/dune component. Material for initial beach and dune nourishment would be obtained from an authorized and permitted offshore source; approximately 688,000 cubic yards of material would be required. Each periodic nourishment would require 21,000 cubic yards of fill, which would be obtained from approved upland sites. First cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $91.3 million. The annualized cost for scheduled periodic nourishment of the Bay Shore component is estimated at $116,000. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.6. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide storm surge protection to residents, visitors, and commercial and institutional providers within Union Beach. In addition, beach and dune nourishment would prevent additional shoreline erosion, provide additional beach habitat, and increase the recreational value of the shoreline. The habitat of the federally protected piping plover, least tern, and seabeach amaranth as well as other shorebirds could result due to the increased beach habitat and increased habitat for horseshoe crabs, which provide food for migratory waterfowl species. The burial of pilings would increase ease of navigational access and improve navigational safety in the near-shore area. The placement of sand could protect unknown cultural resource sites along the shoreline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Placement of beach fill would smother benthos at the placement site and reduce near-shore benthic habitat somewhat; this impact, however, would not significantly affect the benthic communities in the area. Project activities would cause short-term, localized increases in turbidity and push subtidal and intertidal zones further offshore. The project would displace 8.39 acres of vegetated wetland, but this impact would be somewhat mitigated by the creation of 4.84 acres of vegetated wetland and other mitigation efforts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874), and Public Law 84-71. JF - EPA number: 030294, Volume 1--335 pages and maps, Volume 3--771 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Raritan Bay KW - Sandy Hook Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 84-71, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 15 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36347901; 10169-030293_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 15 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 10 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36347797; 10169-030293_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 4 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36347738; 10169-030293_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 14 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36347690; 10169-030293_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 14 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 13 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36347630; 10169-030293_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 13 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. [Part 20 of 20] T2 - RARITY POINTE COMMERCIAL RECREATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON TELLICO RESERVOIR, LOUDON COUNTY, TENNESSEE. AN - 36347415; 10169-030293_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of land use and management actions with respect to lands associated with the Tellico Reservoir in Loudon County, Tennessee is proposed. The Tellico Reservoir and its associated lands offer a variety of natural characteristics, ranging from gently rolling valleys to mountains and from the clear-stream entrance that the Little Tennessee River makes below Chilhowee Dam to the large flat lake behind Tellico Dam. The reservoir is used extensively by boaters, who can access the lake vis? 14 public access areas. The proposal would involve the sale of 118 acres of public land, use of five acres of public land for a small golf course, and use of four acres of public land for a full service marina. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative E) would approve the use of public land for the small golf course and the marina, and modify the current land management plan to allow the sale of the requested land for development; however, the developer would have to exchange 256 acres of land for the 118 acres to be disposed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The land exchange and other land use provisions would allow a recreational resort community to be developed near the lake. The community would benefit the local economy as well as recreationists purchasing property within the community. The plan would result in a net increase in public land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in the loss of public lands to private ownership and, thereby, certain federal controls over the disposed land. Shoreline habitat, recreational opportunities, and the visual and other aesthetic values would be marred due to shoreline developments. Although there would be some adverse impacts to terrestrial ecology, wetlands, water quality, and aquatic ecology to both the involved public and private public lands, these impacts would be offset by the proposed land exchange. Two sensitive species could suffer from a loss of habitat. LEGAL MANDATES: Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0307D, Volume 27, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 030293, 476 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 20 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Reservoirs KW - Resorts KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Little Tennessee River KW - Tennessee KW - Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=RARITY+POINTE+COMMERCIAL+RECREATION+AND+RESIDENTIAL+DEVELOPMENT+ON+TELLICO+RESERVOIR%2C+LOUDON+COUNTY%2C+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RARITAN BAY AND SANDY HOOK BAY, NEW JERSEY: HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION, UNION BEACH, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. AN - 16357246; 10170 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a hurricane and storm damage reduction project for Union Beach, Monmouth County, New Jersey is proposed. The borough of Union Beach, located on the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay shorelines and adjacent areas, has historically been affected by hurricanes, northeasters, and extratropical storms that damaged shorefronts, beaches, dunes, homes, commercial properties, building contents, and community infrastructure. Erosion of the beach and the lack of long-term shore protection measures have resulted in deterioration of the natural beachfront and dune complexes in the study area. Sever storm events cause tidal surges that enter Chingarora, Flat, and East creeks and quickly spread into floodplains and inundate the low-lying marshlands, stranding residents in their homes. Several structural and nonstructural alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The selected plan would provide for improvement components, one each addressing problems experienced by Chingarora Creek, Flat and East creeks, and the Bay Shore area. The Chingarora Creek component would consist of a levee and floodwall system beginning at the high ground (15 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum) near the intersection of Florence Avenue and Bank Street and ending at the northwestern end of the Bay Shore component. The Bay Shore component would consist of a beach and dune complex incorporating terminal grounds with adjoining revetments stretching from the Chingarora Creek levee/floodwall alignment to the southeastern limit of the dune, tying into the levee alignment near Flat Creek. The component addressing Flat and East creeks would consist of a floodwall and levee system beginning at the southeastern limit of the Bay Shore element and tying into the existing Keansburg levee at the eastern end of the study area. A small supplemental interior levee would protect the low-lying homes between East Creek and a tributary of East Creek, while allowing flooding of the adjacent wetlands for the full range of non-storm tidal conditions. In addition to the initial project components, the selected plan would provide for periodic renourishment of the Bay Shore beach/dune component. Material for initial beach and dune nourishment would be obtained from an authorized and permitted offshore source; approximately 688,000 cubic yards of material would be required. Each periodic nourishment would require 21,000 cubic yards of fill, which would be obtained from approved upland sites. First cost of the selected alternative is estimated at $91.3 million. The annualized cost for scheduled periodic nourishment of the Bay Shore component is estimated at $116,000. The benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.6. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide storm surge protection to residents, visitors, and commercial and institutional providers within Union Beach. In addition, beach and dune nourishment would prevent additional shoreline erosion, provide additional beach habitat, and increase the recreational value of the shoreline. The habitat of the federally protected piping plover, least tern, and seabeach amaranth as well as other shorebirds could result due to the increased beach habitat and increased habitat for horseshoe crabs, which provide food for migratory waterfowl species. The burial of pilings would increase ease of navigational access and improve navigational safety in the near-shore area. The placement of sand could protect unknown cultural resource sites along the shoreline. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Placement of beach fill would smother benthos at the placement site and reduce near-shore benthic habitat somewhat; this impact, however, would not significantly affect the benthic communities in the area. Project activities would cause short-term, localized increases in turbidity and push subtidal and intertidal zones further offshore. The project would displace 8.39 acres of vegetated wetland, but this impact would be somewhat mitigated by the creation of 4.84 acres of vegetated wetland and other mitigation efforts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Flood Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874), and Public Law 84-71. JF - EPA number: 030294, Volume 1--335 pages and maps, Volume 3--771 pages, June 20, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Cost Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Jersey KW - Raritan Bay KW - Sandy Hook Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1962, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 84-71, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16357246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-06-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=RARITAN+BAY+AND+SANDY+HOOK+BAY%2C+NEW+JERSEY%3A+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION%2C+UNION+BEACH%2C+MONMOUTH+COUNTY%2C+NEW+JERSEY.&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: June 20, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36437453; 10142 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36437453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA: WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA: WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36368087; 060032D-050488_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would involve development of enhanced coordination of regulatory agencies' actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on unresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-program actions would include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techniques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 050488, Draft EIS--691 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36368087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%3A+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%3A+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 13 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36350335; 10142-030266_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36350335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 2 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36349651; 10142-030266_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36349651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 8 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36348914; 10142-030266_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 1 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36348242; 10142-030266_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36348242?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 7 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36347683; 10142-030266_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 12 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36347446; 10142-030266_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347446?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 11 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36347387; 10142-030266_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 9 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36347357; 10142-030266_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36347313; 10142-030266_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 3 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36347260; 10142-030266_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36347243; 10142-030266_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 10 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36347210; 10142-030266_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. [Part 6 of 13] T2 - MOUNTAINTOP MINING/VALLEY FILLS IN APPALACHIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY, VIRGINIA, AND TENNESSEE. AN - 36346955; 10142-030266_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of mountaintop mining and associated valley fill operations in the Appalachian areas of Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia is proposed. The 12-million-acre study area encompasses most of eastern Kentucky, southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and scattered areas of eastern Tennessee. A 1998 federal agency estimate indicates that the area contains 28.5 billion tons of high-quality coal reserves. The study area contains approximately 59,000 miles of perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream. Most of the streams are headwater streams, which provide diverse invertebrate assemblages, some unique aquatic species, organic energy critical to fish and other aquatic species, and rich plant life and habitat for migratory songbirds, mammals, and amphibians. Mountaintop mining includes all types of surface coal mining, including mountaintop removal, in the steep terrain of the central Appalachian coal fields. Removal of overburden and interburden during mountaintop mining operations results in the generation of excess spoil due to the fact that the broken rock would not entirely fit back into the mining pit. The excess spoil must be placed in disposal sites adjacent to the mining pits in order to allow for efficient and economical coal extraction. Valleys constitute the typical location for excess spoil disposal sites. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would enhance coordination of regulatory actions while maintaining independent review and decision-making by each agency. The size, location, and number of valley fills allowed in waters of the US would be cooperatively determined by agencies responsible for the pertinent application of the Clean Water Act (also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA)) and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) would apply functional stream assessments to determine onsite mitigation. OSM rules would be finalized to make stream buffers zone more consistent with SMCRA and FWPCA. ISM excess spoil rules would be finalized to provide for minimization and alternatives analyses. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) would make case-by-case decisions regarding nationwide permit (NWP) or individual permit (IP) processing. Public interest review and National Environmental Policy Act compliance by the COE would occur for IPs and would be informed, to the extent possible, by the SMCRA permit process. Mitigation of unavoidable aquatic impacts would be required. Endangered Species Act evaluations for IPs would be handled largely by the SCMRA agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would retain the ability to consult on nresolved endangered species issues for all FWPCA applications. Cross-rogram actinos wold include rulemaking; improved data collection, sharing, and analysis; development of joint application, harmonized public participation, procedures, best management practices and advanced identification designation evaluations; and close interagency coordination. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mountaintop mining would provide an economically feasible means of accessing the enormous coal reserves in the region. Coal mined from the area would provide fuel for use by electric generation facilities throughout the region and the country. The proposed environmental review process would serve to minimize the adverse impacts of mining and valley fills on on aquatic and terrestrial resources, particularly resources of importance to threatened and endangered species of animals and plants. In addition, agency oversight and coordination would provide additional protection to public safety. The review process for mining operations would be streamlined significantly, saving operator and federal agency costs while ensuring adequate environmental and socioeconomic impact monitoring and mitigation. Surface mining activities would employ a significant number of local and regional workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining activities would destroy terrestrial vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Disposal of spoil in valley locations would degrade and/or destroy stream habitat, including habitat for federally protected animal and plant species. Water quality in receiving surface flows would be degraded near spoil disposal sites and along downstream reaches. Use of explosives and other aggressive mining techiques associated with mountaintop mining would result in the emission of noise and particulate matter and other air pollutants. The loss of mountain tops would change the the visual appearance and the topography of the affected areas significantly. Mining activities would alter social interactions in affected local communities. 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 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.) JF - EPA number: 030266, Draft EIS--491 pages, Appendix A-C--621 pages, Appendix A-D (Part 1)--501 pages, Appendix D (Part 2)--532 pages, Appendix D (Part 3)--277 pages, Appendix E-F--522 pages, Appendix G (Part 1)--595 pages, Appendix G (Part 3)--557 pages, Appendix G (Part 4) & Appendix H (Part 1)--514 pages, Appendix H (Part 3)--407 pages, Appendix I-L--338 pages, June 6, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EPA 9-03-R-00013 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coal KW - Disposal KW - Electric Power KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Particulates KW - Rivers KW - Streams KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Kentucky KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=MOUNTAINTOP+MINING%2FVALLEY+FILLS+IN+APPALACHIA%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+KENTUCKY%2C+VIRGINIA%2C+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; EPA N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 6, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUTLER SR 63 EXTENSION TO US 127 (TRENTON AREA ACCESS), BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO (PID NO. 20499). AN - 36429735; 10136 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 10.2-mile two- and four-lane, limited access, divided extension of State Route (SR) 63 between a point in the city of Monroe just south of Middletown and a point north of the village of Seven Mile in Butler County, Ohio is proposed. The facility would extend westward on a new alignment from just east of the SR 4/SR 63 interchange in the city of Monroe to a tie-in with US 127 north of the village of Seven Mile. The existing rural network within the corridor is currently characterized by heavy congestion and a high accident rate. The highway would provide a four-lane section from the eastern project terminus at SR 63 to Wane Madison Road and a two-lane section from Wayne Madison Road to the western terminus at US 127. Design features for the four-lane section would provide for 12-foot travel lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders and four-foot inside shoulders, and a 32-foot grass center median. Design features for the two-lane section would provide for 12-foot travel lanes and 10-foot paved outside shoulders. Access to the new facility would be provided by new interchanges with existing SR 63 at the eastern terminus and with SR 4 and at-grade intersections at Woodsdale Road, Wayne Road, Wayne Madison Road, Jacksonburg Road, and US 127. Crossing structures (mainline or crossroad overpasses) would be provided at SR 503, Taylor School Road, Cotton RUn Road, Cotton Run Creek, Riverside Drive/Hamilton-Trenton Road, and the CSX Railroad line. Existing roads to be cul-de-saced would include Wehr Road, Busenbark Road, Kennel Road, Wayne Trace Road, and existing SR 127 at the western project terminus. In addition to the preferred alternative, a feasible action alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase capacity and connectivity within the corridor and along crossing roads, enhance safety and efficiency of traffic movements, contribute to social and economic development, and forward local, regional, and state planning goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, amounting to 429 acres within 61 parcels, would result in the displacement of nine single-family residences, 72.7 acres of farmland, and 1.47 acre of wetlands. A total of 13 parcels would be landlocked by the project. The new facility would traverse seven streams, affecting 1,200 feet of channels and banks. The corridor would traverse a groundwater aquifer and result in minor encroachment on the floodplain of the Great Miami River as well as on habitat for habitat for federally protected species. The project would disturb four archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase at four locations, though noise levels would not exceed federal standards in the vicinity of these sites. LEGAL MANDATES: 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). JF - EPA number: 030260, 827 pages and maps, June 3, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Ohio KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36429735?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUTLER+SR+63+EXTENSION+TO+US+127+%28TRENTON+AREA+ACCESS%29%2C+BUTLER+COUNTY%2C+OHIO+%28PID+NO.+20499%29.&rft.title=BUTLER+SR+63+EXTENSION+TO+US+127+%28TRENTON+AREA+ACCESS%29%2C+BUTLER+COUNTY%2C+OHIO+%28PID+NO.+20499%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUTLER SR 63 EXTENSION TO US 127 (TRENTON AREA ACCESS), BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO (PID NO. 20499). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - BUTLER SR 63 EXTENSION TO US 127 (TRENTON AREA ACCESS), BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO (PID NO. 20499). AN - 36347577; 10136-030260_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 10.2-mile two- and four-lane, limited access, divided extension of State Route (SR) 63 between a point in the city of Monroe just south of Middletown and a point north of the village of Seven Mile in Butler County, Ohio is proposed. The facility would extend westward on a new alignment from just east of the SR 4/SR 63 interchange in the city of Monroe to a tie-in with US 127 north of the village of Seven Mile. The existing rural network within the corridor is currently characterized by heavy congestion and a high accident rate. The highway would provide a four-lane section from the eastern project terminus at SR 63 to Wane Madison Road and a two-lane section from Wayne Madison Road to the western terminus at US 127. Design features for the four-lane section would provide for 12-foot travel lanes, 10-foot paved outside shoulders and four-foot inside shoulders, and a 32-foot grass center median. Design features for the two-lane section would provide for 12-foot travel lanes and 10-foot paved outside shoulders. Access to the new facility would be provided by new interchanges with existing SR 63 at the eastern terminus and with SR 4 and at-grade intersections at Woodsdale Road, Wayne Road, Wayne Madison Road, Jacksonburg Road, and US 127. Crossing structures (mainline or crossroad overpasses) would be provided at SR 503, Taylor School Road, Cotton RUn Road, Cotton Run Creek, Riverside Drive/Hamilton-Trenton Road, and the CSX Railroad line. Existing roads to be cul-de-saced would include Wehr Road, Busenbark Road, Kennel Road, Wayne Trace Road, and existing SR 127 at the western project terminus. In addition to the preferred alternative, a feasible action alternative is considered in this draft EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase capacity and connectivity within the corridor and along crossing roads, enhance safety and efficiency of traffic movements, contribute to social and economic development, and forward local, regional, and state planning goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements, amounting to 429 acres within 61 parcels, would result in the displacement of nine single-family residences, 72.7 acres of farmland, and 1.47 acre of wetlands. A total of 13 parcels would be landlocked by the project. The new facility would traverse seven streams, affecting 1,200 feet of channels and banks. The corridor would traverse a groundwater aquifer and result in minor encroachment on the floodplain of the Great Miami River as well as on habitat for habitat for federally protected species. The project would disturb four archaeological sites. Traffic-generated noise levels would increase at four locations, though noise levels would not exceed federal standards in the vicinity of these sites. LEGAL MANDATES: 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). JF - EPA number: 030260, 827 pages and maps, June 3, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-OH-EIS-03-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Ohio KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-06-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUTLER+SR+63+EXTENSION+TO+US+127+%28TRENTON+AREA+ACCESS%29%2C+BUTLER+COUNTY%2C+OHIO+%28PID+NO.+20499%29.&rft.title=BUTLER+SR+63+EXTENSION+TO+US+127+%28TRENTON+AREA+ACCESS%29%2C+BUTLER+COUNTY%2C+OHIO+%28PID+NO.+20499%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbus, Ohio; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 3, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Engineering Geology AN - 51972064; 2003-043932 JF - Engineering Geology AU - Hempen, Gregory L AU - Krinitzsky, Ellis L Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - June 2003 SP - 411 EP - 412 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 69 IS - 3-4 SN - 0013-7952, 0013-7952 KW - seismic zoning KW - seismic risk KW - statistical analysis KW - ground motion KW - probability KW - aseismic design KW - earthquakes KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51972064?accountid=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=Engineering+Geology&rft.atitle=Engineering+Geology&rft.au=Hempen%2C+Gregory+L%3BKrinitzsky%2C+Ellis+L&rft.aulast=Hempen&rft.aufirst=Gregory&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=411&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Engineering+Geology&rft.issn=00137952&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0013-7952%2802%2900251-X L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00137952 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 - 2003-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - For reference to original see Krinitzsky, E. L., Engineering Geology, Vol. 65, No. 1, p. 1-16, 2002 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EGGOAO N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aseismic design; earthquakes; ground motion; probability; seismic risk; seismic zoning; statistical analysis DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00251-X ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A new and defective regulation in California for protecting critical buildings from earthquakes AN - 51971504; 2003-043933 AB - The California Geological Survey issued a new regulatory directive specifying that critical buildings be designed for 50- and 100-year earthquakes obtained by probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). PSHA incorporates serious uncertainties. Chiefly, they are: (1) PSHA smears earthquakes together to produce motions that are unrealistic for any specific earthquake-generating fault source, (2) PSHA assumes there is an essentially log-linear predictability through time for both the sizes of earthquakes and their motions, although earthquake experiences deny this assumption, and (3) PSHA derives design values from an almost total lack of data on the recurrences that it claims to represent. Error bands for probabilistic motions, if honestly applied, would be so enormously broad that probabilistic values would be seen to be too uncertain as a rational basis for critical designs. Worse yet, the directive of the California Geological Survey has forced a de facto elimination of deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) from consideration. Yet, DSHA provides more logical, more transparent, more peer reviewable, and more dependable solutions than does PSHA. In summary, the new regulatory directive fails to provide the public in California with a necessary level of seismic safety. JF - Engineering Geology AU - Mualchin, Lalliana AU - Krinitzsky, Ellis L Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - June 2003 SP - 415 EP - 419 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 69 IS - 3-4 SN - 0013-7952, 0013-7952 KW - United States KW - regulations KW - statistical analysis KW - seismic response KW - California KW - seismic risk KW - ground motion KW - buildings KW - risk assessment KW - probability KW - aseismic design KW - earthquakes KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 19:Seismology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51971504?accountid=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=Engineering+Geology&rft.atitle=A+new+and+defective+regulation+in+California+for+protecting+critical+buildings+from+earthquakes&rft.au=Mualchin%2C+Lalliana%3BKrinitzsky%2C+Ellis+L&rft.aulast=Mualchin&rft.aufirst=Lalliana&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=3-4&rft.spage=415&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Engineering+Geology&rft.issn=00137952&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0013-7952%2802%2900243-0 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00137952 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 - 2003-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - EGGOAO N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aseismic design; buildings; California; earthquakes; ground motion; probability; regulations; risk assessment; seismic response; seismic risk; statistical analysis; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00243-0 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Computer programs for application of equations describing elastic and electromagnetic wave scattering from planar interfaces AN - 51962060; 2003-052213 AB - MATLAB programs are presented which solve equations describing the scattering of plane elastic and electromagnetic waves from a planar interface separating homogenous, isotropic, and semi-infinite geologic media. The PSHSV program calculates and plots amplitude (reflection and refraction/transmission) coefficients, square root energy ratios, energy coefficients, and phase changes for elastic waves of P-, SH- or SV-type incident on an interface between elastic media. The EHEV program calculates and plots amplitude coefficients, square root energy ratios, energy coefficients, and phase changes for electromagnetic waves of EH- or EV-type incident on an interface between dielectric media. The applicability of the programs is demonstrated through the presentation of solutions (plotted as a function of incidence angle) obtained for geologic environments commonly encountered in seismic and ground penetrating radar applications. JF - Computers & Geosciences AU - Guy, Erich D AU - Radzevicius, Stanley J AU - Conroy, James P Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - June 2003 SP - 569 EP - 575 PB - Pergamon, New York-Oxford-Toronto VL - 29 IS - 5 SN - 0098-3004, 0098-3004 KW - MATLAB KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - geophysical methods KW - data processing KW - radar methods KW - electromagnetic waves KW - elastic waves KW - seismic methods KW - computer programs KW - EHEV KW - electromagnetic methods KW - seismic waves KW - algorithms KW - amplitude KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51962060?accountid=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=Computers+%26+Geosciences&rft.atitle=Computer+programs+for+application+of+equations+describing+elastic+and+electromagnetic+wave+scattering+from+planar+interfaces&rft.au=Guy%2C+Erich+D%3BRadzevicius%2C+Stanley+J%3BConroy%2C+James+P&rft.aulast=Guy&rft.aufirst=Erich&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=569&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Computers+%26+Geosciences&rft.issn=00983004&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0098-3004%2803%2900049-9 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=5840&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e5198452fad934c6346f38b57511c8e0 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 - 2003-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 16 N1 - Document feature - illus. N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GGEOD5 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - algorithms; amplitude; computer programs; data processing; EHEV; elastic waves; electromagnetic methods; electromagnetic waves; geophysical methods; ground-penetrating radar; MATLAB; radar methods; seismic methods; seismic waves DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0098-3004(03)00049-9 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Elevated lateral stress in unlithified sediment, Midcontinent, United States; geotechnical and geophysical indicators for a tectonic origin AN - 51754467; 2005-013871 AB - Indirect and direct geotechnical measurements revealed the presence of high lateral earth pressure (K (sub o) ) in shallow, unlithified sediment at a site in the northernmost Mississippi embayment region of the central United States. Results from pile-load and pressuremeter tests showed maximum K (sub o) values greater than 10; however, the complex geologic environment of the Midcontinent made defining an origin for the anomalous K (sub o) based solely on these measurements equivocal. Although in situ sediment characteristics indicated that indirect tectonic or nontectonic geologic mechanisms that include transient overburden loads (e.g., fluvial deposition/erosion, glacial advance/retreat) and dynamic shear loads (e.g., earthquakes) were not the dominant cause, they were unable to provide indicators for a direct tectonic generation. Localized stresses induced anthropogenically by the geotechnical field tests were also considered, but ruled out as the primary origin. A high-resolution shear-wave (SH) reflection image of geologic structure in the immediate vicinity of the test site revealed compression-style neotectonism, and suggested that the elevated stress was a tectonic manifestation. Post-Paleozoic reflectors exhibit a Tertiary (?) structural inversion, as evidenced by post-Cretaceous fault displacement and pronounced positive folds in the hanging wall of the interpreted faults. The latest stratigraphic extent of the stress effects (i.e., all measurements were in the Late Cretaceous to Tertiary McNairy Formation), as well as the relationship of stress orientation with the orientation of local structure and regional stress, remain unknown. These are the subjects of ongoing studies. JF - Tectonophysics AU - Woolery, Edward W AU - Schaefer, Jeffrey A AU - Wang, Zhenming A2 - McBride, John H. A2 - Stephenson, William J. Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - June 2003 SP - 139 EP - 153 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 368 IS - 1-4 SN - 0040-1951, 0040-1951 KW - United States KW - McNairy Formation KW - seismic stratigraphy KW - geophysical surveys KW - site exploration KW - Mississippi Embayment KW - elastic waves KW - New Madrid region KW - Cenozoic KW - neotectonics KW - folds KW - sediments KW - pressuremeter tests KW - SH-waves KW - tectonics KW - faults KW - Ohio River KW - soils KW - soil mechanics KW - body waves KW - soil profiles KW - seismic profiles KW - Illinois KW - stress KW - geophysical methods KW - Ballard County Kentucky KW - Midcontinent KW - reflection methods KW - deformation KW - seismic methods KW - Olmsted Dam KW - Tertiary KW - surveys KW - Kentucky KW - geophysical profiles KW - unconsolidated materials KW - seismic waves KW - earthquakes KW - S-waves KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 20:Applied geophysics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/51754467?accountid=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=Tectonophysics&rft.atitle=Elevated+lateral+stress+in+unlithified+sediment%2C+Midcontinent%2C+United+States%3B+geotechnical+and+geophysical+indicators+for+a+tectonic+origin&rft.au=Woolery%2C+Edward+W%3BSchaefer%2C+Jeffrey+A%3BWang%2C+Zhenming&rft.aulast=Woolery&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=368&rft.issue=1-4&rft.spage=139&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Tectonophysics&rft.issn=00401951&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS0040-1951%2803%2900155-0 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401951 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Contributions of high-resolution geophysics to understanding neotectonics and seismic hazard 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 - 43 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 plate, 1 table, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - TCTOAM N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Ballard County Kentucky; body waves; Cenozoic; deformation; earthquakes; elastic waves; faults; folds; geophysical methods; geophysical profiles; geophysical surveys; Illinois; Kentucky; McNairy Formation; Midcontinent; Mississippi Embayment; neotectonics; New Madrid region; Ohio River; Olmsted Dam; pressuremeter tests; reflection methods; S-waves; sediments; seismic methods; seismic profiles; seismic stratigraphy; seismic waves; SH-waves; site exploration; soil mechanics; soil profiles; soils; stress; surveys; tectonics; Tertiary; unconsolidated materials; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(03)00155-0 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Product life cycle planning AN - 50412208; 2004-026642 JF - ERDC Special Report AU - Walaszek, Jeffrey J AU - Goran, William D AU - Butler, Cary D AU - McGuire, Kay C AU - Prickett, Terri L AU - White, Kathleen D AU - Wolfe, William J Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - June 2003 SP - 46 PB - U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS KW - United States KW - civil engineering KW - programs KW - technology KW - Regional Sediment Management Program KW - erosion KW - human activity KW - watersheds KW - decision-making KW - technology transfer KW - natural resources KW - planning KW - land management KW - sediments KW - estuarine environment KW - fluvial environment KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50412208?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=Walaszek%2C+Jeffrey+J%3BGoran%2C+William+D%3BButler%2C+Cary+D%3BMcGuire%2C+Kay+C%3BPrickett%2C+Terri+L%3BWhite%2C+Kathleen+D%3BWolfe%2C+William+J&rft.aulast=Walaszek&rft.aufirst=Jeffrey&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Product+life+cycle+planning&rft.title=Product+life+cycle+planning&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2004-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 10 N1 - PubXState - MS N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 12 tables N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-18 N1 - CODEN - #05880 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - civil engineering; decision-making; erosion; estuarine environment; fluvial environment; human activity; land management; natural resources; planning; programs; Regional Sediment Management Program; sediments; technology; technology transfer; United States; watersheds ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sediment budget of the Illinois River AN - 50067327; 2010-025211 AB - The Illinois River, the most significant river in Illinois, drains nearly half of the state, and most of the major streams in Illinois drain into it. The Illinois Waterway with its system of locks and dams links Chicago and the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River, and, thus, the Gulf of Mexico. This linkage has a significant transportation and commercial value for the state and the nation. In addition, with its numerous backwater lakes, wetlands, and floodplain forests, the Illinois River valley provides a significant habitat for fish, waterfowl, birds, and other animals, making it an important ecological resource. The Illinois River's environment has been subjected to many of the impacts associated with developments in the watershed, including waste discharges from urban areas, water-level control for navigation, and sediment and chemical inflow from agricultural lands. The quality of the river was severely degraded for several decades prior to the 1970s when environmental regulations were enacted to control pollutant discharges. Since then the quality of the river has been gradually improving. However, problems associated with erosion and sedimentation have not been improving and are recognized as the number-one environmental problem in the Illinois River valley. The main sources of sediment to the Illinois River valley are watershed erosion, stream bank erosion, and bluff erosion. The contribution of watershed erosion to the sedimentation problem in the Illinois River valley has been quantified by analyzing the sediment yields of tributary streams that drain into the valley. Annual sediment yield equations were developed for the major tributaries and then used to construct an approximate sediment budget for the Illinois River valley. JF - International Journal of Sediment Research AU - Demissie, Misganaw AU - Xia, Renjie AU - Keefer, Laura AU - Bhowmik, Nani G Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - June 2003 SP - 305 EP - 313 PB - International Research and Training Centre on Erosion and Sedimentation (IRTCES), Beijing VL - 18 IS - 2 SN - 1013-7866, 1013-7866 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - bedload KW - North America KW - Missouri River KW - Illinois KW - sediment transport KW - erosion KW - stream sediments KW - sedimentation KW - rivers and streams KW - Illinois River KW - fluvial sedimentation KW - wetlands KW - Chicago Illinois KW - sediment yield KW - sediments KW - Great Lakes KW - fluvial environment KW - Cook County Illinois KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50067327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Sediment+Research&rft.atitle=Sediment+budget+of+the+Illinois+River&rft.au=Demissie%2C+Misganaw%3BXia%2C+Renjie%3BKeefer%2C+Laura%3BBhowmik%2C+Nani+G&rft.aulast=Demissie&rft.aufirst=Misganaw&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=305&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Sediment+Research&rft.issn=10137866&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://www.waser.cn/journal/journal-main.asp LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 12 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - bedload; Chicago Illinois; Cook County Illinois; erosion; fluvial environment; fluvial sedimentation; Great Lakes; hydrology; Illinois; Illinois River; Missouri River; North America; rivers and streams; sediment transport; sediment yield; sedimentation; sediments; stream sediments; United States; wetlands ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Atmospheric Concentrations and Vertical Fluxes of Persistent Organic Pollutants from Milwaukee, Wisconsin AN - 19399832; 5800543 AB - In June of 2001 a five-day investigation into the contribution of airborne toxic pollutants by the city of Milwaukee was conducted. Gas and particulate phase atmospheric samples, along with on-site meteorological conditions, were collected on the roof of the Great Lakes WATER Institute. The gas phase PCB concentration during this study was found to be 1.94 plus or minus 0.74 ng m super(-3), while the particulate phase was reported at 0.047 plus or minus 0.023 ng m super(-3). The net gas flux into Lake Michigan from Milwaukee was estimated to be 223 plus or minus 104 ng m super(-2) d super(-1). Additionally, data describing the average particle size distribution measured in Milwaukee was combined with particulate phase PCB concentrations. This information was then association with a size-specific particulate deposition model in order to predict dry deposition of PCBs. Particulate-bound PCB fluxes into Lake Michigan from the city of Milwaukee were found to average at 41.4 plus or minus 35.1 ng m super(-2) d super(-1). The results from this study concluded that Milwaukee is a significant source of PCBs to Lake Michigan, on the same order of magnitude as the city of Chicago. This study also demonstrates the possible significance of dry deposition of PCBs associated with large atmospheric particles, in addition to the dominance of the gas-phase control pertaining to the long-range transport of PCBs in temperate climates. JF - Global Threats to Large Lakes: Managing in an Environment of Instability and Unpredictability AU - Wethington, D M AU - Hornbuckle, K C Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - June 2003 SP - 1 EP - 235 PB - International Association for Great Lakes Research, 2205 Commonwealth Boulevard Ann Arbor MI 48105 USA KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - Meteorological Data Collection KW - Temperate climates KW - Air-water Interfaces KW - Particulate matter in urban air KW - USA, Wisconsin KW - Lakes KW - PCB KW - Air Pollution KW - Particle size distribution KW - Aerosols KW - Atmospheric gases KW - Atmospheric pollution KW - persistent organic pollutants KW - Air-water interface KW - USA, Michigan L. KW - Pollutant deposition KW - Long-range transport KW - Air-water interactions KW - Dry deposition KW - Toxic pollutants KW - USA, Illinois, Chicago KW - USA, Wisconsin, Milwaukee KW - Polychlorinated Biphenyls KW - Pollution dispersion KW - Atmosphere KW - Pollutant persistence KW - Volatile compounds KW - Meteorology KW - PCB compounds KW - Meteorological conditions KW - Great Lakes research KW - Air-water exchanges KW - Particle size KW - Atmospheric particulates KW - Air pollution KW - North America, Great Lakes KW - Deposition KW - Urban atmospheric pollution KW - Instability KW - Meteorological institutions KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - M2 551.510.42:Air Pollution (551.510.42) KW - P 0000:AIR 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/19399832?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=Wethington%2C+D+M%3BHornbuckle%2C+K+C&rft.aulast=Wethington&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=235&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Atmospheric+Concentrations+and+Vertical+Fluxes+of+Persistent+Organic+Pollutants+from+Milwaukee%2C+Wisconsin&rft.title=Atmospheric+Concentrations+and+Vertical+Fluxes+of+Persistent+Organic+Pollutants+from+Milwaukee%2C+Wisconsin&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2007-02-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-27 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Submerged Ordnance and Unrestrained Cylinder Movement in Coastal Zone AN - 18898472; 5633967 AB - Laboratory experiments were conducted in a wave flume to measure wave conditions (height, period, and kinematics) that caused movement of submerged ordnance and cylinders. Laboratory results were analyzed and two empirical theories were developed for predicting movement based on wave conditions and ordnance/cylinder characteristics: (1) modified Shields parameter approach comparing ordnance and cylinder parameters with a wave Shields parameter to identify critical regimes for ordnance/cylinder movement; and (2) Keulegan-Carpenter number (KC) approach comparing the ratio of maximum orbital velocity at the ordnance/cylinder surface and ordnance/cylinder diameter with relative water depth. Evaluation of these two approaches with the laboratory data indicated that the best predictive technique appeared to be the modified Shields parameter approach. A field deployment of two drogue cylinders instrumented with acoustic pingers was conducted to further investigate ordnance movement using acoustic tracking procedures. Measured wave conditions and cylinder characteristics were used in the modified Shields parameter approach and indicated that the cylinders would be mobile. The field deployment of two cylinders verified the prediction results showing net movements of 15 and 13 m, respectively. JF - Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering AU - Williams, G L AU - Randall, R E AD - Coastal, H&H Section, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890, USA, greg.l.williams@saw02.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - Jun 2003 SP - 136 EP - 145 VL - 129 IS - 3 SN - 0733-950X, 0733-950X KW - Ordnance KW - Oceanic Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Prediction KW - Water depth KW - Coastal Waters KW - Military operations KW - Field Tests KW - Spatial Distribution KW - Comparative studies KW - Distribution (Mathematical) KW - Water Depth KW - Field studies KW - Waves KW - Transport processes KW - Wave effects KW - Marine KW - Experimental Data KW - Cylinders KW - Waves (Water) KW - Coastal waters KW - Model Studies KW - Local movements KW - Coastal zone KW - Comparison Studies KW - Explosives KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09284:Hydrodynamics, wave, current and ice forces KW - O 3050:Sediment Dynamics KW - SW 0890:Estuaries UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18898472?accountid=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+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.atitle=Submerged+Ordnance+and+Unrestrained+Cylinder+Movement+in+Coastal+Zone&rft.au=Williams%2C+G+L%3BRandall%2C+R+E&rft.aulast=Williams&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=129&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=136&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%282003%29129%3A3%28136%29 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water depth; Prediction; Local movements; Coastal zone; Cylinders; Military operations; Transport processes; Explosives; Wave effects; Comparative studies; Distribution (Mathematical); Waves (Water); Field studies; Coastal waters; Experimental Data; Comparison Studies; Coastal Waters; Water Depth; Waves; Field Tests; Spatial Distribution; Model Studies; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2003)129:3(136) ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Application of GIS to evaluate long-term variation of sediment discharge to coastal environment AN - 17283406; 5673993 AB - This paper presents a GIS-based method to calculate the total sediment discharge from river basins to coastal areas. This method uses Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to calculate the rate of soil erosion and Gross Erosion-Sediment Delivery method (GESD) to calculate the total sediment discharge in a GIS modeling environment. The model is tested using the data of Abe River then applied to four river basins in Asia. Global data sets are used as the input to the current model. The result shows that there are significant variations of sediment discharges due to the precipitation change in these river basins. JF - Coastal Engineering Journal AU - Tuan, L T AU - Shibayama, Tomoya AD - Vietnam Institute for Water Resources Research, 171 Tay Son Str., Dong Da, Hanoi, Vietnam, vnwp@hn.vnn.vn Y1 - 2003/06// PY - 2003 DA - Jun 2003 SP - 275 EP - 293 VL - 45 IS - 2 SN - 0578-5634, 0578-5634 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Rivers KW - Catchment area KW - River Basins KW - Fluvial Sediments KW - River discharge KW - Brackish KW - River basins KW - Sediment Discharge KW - Model Testing KW - Precipitation KW - Estuarine sedimentation KW - Model Studies KW - Coastal zone KW - INW, Asia KW - Fluvial transport KW - Sediment transport KW - Soil Erosion KW - GIS KW - Geographical Information Systems KW - Q2 09393:Remote geosensing KW - O 6060:Coastal Zone Resources and Management KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - O 3050:Sediment Dynamics KW - SW 0870:Erosion and sedimentation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/17283406?accountid=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=Coastal+Engineering+Journal&rft.atitle=Application+of+GIS+to+evaluate+long-term+variation+of+sediment+discharge+to+coastal+environment&rft.au=Tuan%2C+L+T%3BShibayama%2C+Tomoya&rft.aulast=Tuan&rft.aufirst=L&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=275&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering+Journal&rft.issn=05785634&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 - Catchment area; Coastal zone; Fluvial transport; River discharge; Sediment transport; River basins; Estuarine sedimentation; GIS; Rivers; River Basins; Fluvial Sediments; Precipitation; Model Testing; Sediment Discharge; Soil Erosion; Geographical Information Systems; Model Studies; INW, Asia; Brackish ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36386951; 10130-030253_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36386951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20070504//030253/030253_0010.txt of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36385814; 10130-030253_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - /blobprod/objects_content/raw_input/EIS/epabundle/techbooks_updates/20070504//030253/030253_0010.txt KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36385814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36385010; 10130-030253_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36385010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36384008; 10130-030253_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36384008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36383920; 10130-030253_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36383920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36382751; 10130-030253_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36382751?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36382580; 10130-030253_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36382580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36382569; 10130-030253_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36382569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36381391; 10130-030253_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36381391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36381193; 10130-030253_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36381193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36373090; 10130-030253_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36373090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36371934; 10130-030253_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36371934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 36370139; 11307-040568_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 47-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of northwest Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,760 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of 34 residences, and 25 farm households containing 103 buildings, residences and three commercial buildings as well as 842 acres of prime farmland, 3.63 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forest land, fragmenting habitat for neotropical migratory bird species; mitigation for loss of forested habitat to provide for neotopical migratory birds wetland displacement would be implemented. Severance of 98 farm parcels and 36 landlocked parcels would result in a moderate-to-severe access loss. The facility would traverse 4 streams and rivers longitudinally, degrading visual aesthetics of the Apple River corridor and displacing 240,017 square feet of 112 base 100-year floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous water sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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 epa=030253D, Volume 27, Number 4 JF - EPA number: 040568, 241 pages and maps, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-DF KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Floodplains KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/36370139?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. ROUTE 20 (FAP 301), FROM ILLINOIS ROUTE 84 NORTH OF GALENA TO BOLTON ROAD NORTHWEST OF FREEPORT IN JO DAVIESS AND STEPHENSON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS. AN - 16359158; 10130 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of US 20 (Federal-Aid Primary Route 301), a 50-mile facility extending from Illinois Route 84 northwest of the city of Galena to Bolton Road northwest of the city of Freeport in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties, Illinois is proposed. The counties are continuing to experience strong commercial and residential growth, particularly near Galena and the Galena Territory. In addition to the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), this draft addresses 12 action alternatives, two expressway and 10 freeway alternatives, each of which would be developed as a multi-lane facility. Alternative 2, to be known as the Long Hollow Freeway has been identified as the preferred alternative. The four-lane freeway would Traffic on opposing travel lanes of the freeway would be separated by a median with a width of 54 to 84 feet. Access, including access to and from all state marked highways, would be provided via interchanges. All county roads and most township roads would be traversed via grade separation structures. Frontage roads would provide access to existing homes, farmsteads, commercial and industrial operations, and service drives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-type highway, with an appropriate connection to the four-lane facility west of Route 84 and extending 50 miles to the east, connecting to a previously approved four-lane facility northwest of Freeport. As a result, the proposed action would integrate the needs of increased development, system capacity, travel safety, community access, and system continuity. The project would contribute significantly to regional economic growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would displace 2,784 acres of land, resulting in the displacement of nine non-farm and 25 farm residences and three commercial buildings as well as 2,530 acres of farmland, 3.65 acres of wetlands, and 274 acres of forested land. Land within 14 farms would be affected. The freeway would result in moderate and severe access convenience for five and nine farms, respectively. Access from one non-farm residence would also be severely affected. The facility would traverse 11 streams and rivers, displacing 239,581 square feet of floodplain. Seven roads would require relocation and four roads would be closed. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at several locations, though noise barriers would mitigate some of these impacts. Construction workers would encounter four known hazardous waste sites. Freeway structures would mar visual aesthetics in a largely rural area. 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: 030253, Draft EIS--391 pages and maps, Appendices--373 pages and maps, Map supplement, May 28, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-IL-EIS-00-03-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Illinois 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/16359158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-05-28&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=U.S.+ROUTE+20+%28FAP+301%29%2C+FROM+ILLINOIS+ROUTE+84+NORTH+OF+GALENA+TO+BOLTON+ROAD+NORTHWEST+OF+FREEPORT+IN+JO+DAVIESS+AND+STEPHENSON+COUNTIES%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield, Illinois; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 28, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - CPAPER T1 - US army corps of engineers involvement in Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration AN - 39739506; 3751400 AU - Schulte, D M Y1 - 2003/05/19/ PY - 2003 DA - 2003 May 19 KW - CPI, Conference Papers Index KW - U 1200:Aquatic Science KW - U 2000:Biology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/39739506?accountid=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=US+army+corps+of+engineers+involvement+in+Chesapeake+Bay+oyster+restoration&rft.au=Schulte%2C+D+M&rft.aulast=Schulte&rft.aufirst=D&rft.date=2003-05-19&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: SC Sea Grant Consortium, phone: (843) 727-2078; email: Elaine.Knight@scseagrant.org; URL: www.scseagrant.org/icsr.htm N1 - Last updated - 2010-05-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND OCKINHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418C). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND OCKINHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418C). AN - 36364974; 10778-040226_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 19.8-mile segment of Interstate 93 (I-93) from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line northward through the towns of Salem, Windham, Derry, and Londonderry, to the I-93/I-293 interchange in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire. The study corridor is located in Hillsborough and Rockingham counties. I-93 is principal north-south arterial within the state of New Hampshire and part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The segment of I-93 under study intersects a number of important highway routes in southern New Hampshire. Due to population growth, development, and increasing recreational opportunities in New Hampshire, the travel demands for I-93 between Salem and Manchester have exceeded the capacity of the existing four-lane facility for a number of years. Alternatives considered in this final EIS include a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management and transportation demand management alternatives, widening of the highway combined with interchange improvements, and alternative modes of transportation. The preferred alternative would involve widening I-93 from the existing limited access, two-lane highway in each direction to a limited (fully controlled) access, four-lane highway in each direction. Five existing interchanges and crossroads within the project corridor would be reconstructed. In addition, three new park-and-ride facilities would be provided, one each at exits 2, 3, and 5, and bus service and ride-sharing opportunities to Boston and northern Massachusetts would be expanded and enhanced. A bike path would be integrated into the highway project and space would be reserved in the median to accommodate future commuter light rail trains. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $420.6 million; this figure does not include rights-of-way acquisition costs associated with open land, strip acquisitions, appraisal fees, and other administrative costs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase transportation efficiency within the corridor by reducing congestion and enhancing safety. By allowing for a more efficient flow of traffic, the proposed alterative would result in decreased emissions of hydrocarbon pollutants and increased energy efficiency. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 21 residences and 14 business structures, 10 acres of important farmland soils, 77 acres of wetlands, including forested wetland, four vernal pools, and one state-listed protected species, the wild lupine. Displacements of wetland and upland areas would total 260 acres. Approximately 98 acres of stratified drift aquifer would be covered with impervious roadway surface, and the project would require lengthening culverts at may of the 21 stream crossings, resulting the loss of some aquatic habitat. Six acre-feet of floodway and 43 acre-feet of floodplain would be impacted. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 316 sensitive receptors in the year 2020; current noise levels are in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of 265 receptors. Approximately 27,70 feet of sound walls would be provided. The project would affect 23 archaeological sites and six historically significant properties. Construction activities could encounter an estimated 13 hazardous material sites. Habitat for the New England cottontail, a candidate species for federal protection, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0086D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040226, Final EIS--548 pages, Volume II--Map Supplement, Volume 3--621 pages and maps, May 12, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NH-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Hampshire KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36364974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+OCKINHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418C%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+OCKINHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418C%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Concord, New Hampshire; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 93 IMPROVEMENTS, SALEM TO MANCHESTER, HILLSBOROUGH AND OCKINHAM COUNTIES, NEW HAMPSHIRE (IM-IR-93-1(174)0, 10418C). AN - 16345565; 10778 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 19.8-mile segment of Interstate 93 (I-93) from the Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line northward through the towns of Salem, Windham, Derry, and Londonderry, to the I-93/I-293 interchange in the city of Manchester, New Hampshire. The study corridor is located in Hillsborough and Rockingham counties. I-93 is principal north-south arterial within the state of New Hampshire and part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. The segment of I-93 under study intersects a number of important highway routes in southern New Hampshire. Due to population growth, development, and increasing recreational opportunities in New Hampshire, the travel demands for I-93 between Salem and Manchester have exceeded the capacity of the existing four-lane facility for a number of years. Alternatives considered in this final EIS include a No-Build Alternative, transportation system management and transportation demand management alternatives, widening of the highway combined with interchange improvements, and alternative modes of transportation. The preferred alternative would involve widening I-93 from the existing limited access, two-lane highway in each direction to a limited (fully controlled) access, four-lane highway in each direction. Five existing interchanges and crossroads within the project corridor would be reconstructed. In addition, three new park-and-ride facilities would be provided, one each at exits 2, 3, and 5, and bus service and ride-sharing opportunities to Boston and northern Massachusetts would be expanded and enhanced. A bike path would be integrated into the highway project and space would be reserved in the median to accommodate future commuter light rail trains. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $420.6 million; this figure does not include rights-of-way acquisition costs associated with open land, strip acquisitions, appraisal fees, and other administrative costs. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would increase transportation efficiency within the corridor by reducing congestion and enhancing safety. By allowing for a more efficient flow of traffic, the proposed alterative would result in decreased emissions of hydrocarbon pollutants and increased energy efficiency. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements for the preferred alternative would result in the displacement of 21 residences and 14 business structures, 10 acres of important farmland soils, 77 acres of wetlands, including forested wetland, four vernal pools, and one state-listed protected species, the wild lupine. Displacements of wetland and upland areas would total 260 acres. Approximately 98 acres of stratified drift aquifer would be covered with impervious roadway surface, and the project would require lengthening culverts at may of the 21 stream crossings, resulting the loss of some aquatic habitat. Six acre-feet of floodway and 43 acre-feet of floodplain would be impacted. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of 316 sensitive receptors in the year 2020; current noise levels are in excess of federal standards in the vicinity of 265 receptors. Approximately 27,70 feet of sound walls would be provided. The project would affect 23 archaeological sites and six historically significant properties. Construction activities could encounter an estimated 13 hazardous material sites. Habitat for the New England cottontail, a candidate species for federal protection, would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 03-0086D, Volume 27, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 040226, Final EIS--548 pages, Volume II--Map Supplement, Volume 3--621 pages and maps, May 12, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NH-EIS-02-01-F KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Floodways KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Control KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Streams KW - Transportation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - New Hampshire KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Archaeologic Sites KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16345565?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-05-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+OCKINHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418C%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+93+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+SALEM+TO+MANCHESTER%2C+HILLSBOROUGH+AND+OCKINHAM+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+HAMPSHIRE+%28IM-IR-93-1%28174%290%2C+10418C%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Concord, New Hampshire; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 12, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36439859; 10090 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a container terminal adjacent to the Port of Houston's Bayport Ship Channel in the city of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas are proposed. Container throughput in Houston has risen at an average annual growth rate of 10 percent since 1992, increasing from 490,000 twenty-ton equivalent units (TEUs) in 1994 to 1.0 million TEUs in 1999. The project site is located on a primarily upland area encompassing 1,091 acres along the south side of the channel and to the west of the Houston Ship Channel, located approximately 25 miles southeast of downtown Houston. The Port Authority currently owns approximately 1,086 acres of land at and near the Bayport site, but not all of that property is part of the project site. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and six Bayport alternatives and six alternatives involving siting of the facilities elsewhere, are considered in this final EIS. The Port Authority's proposal would involve development of 30 acres of wharf, 374 acres for container yard facilities, 71 acres of gate facilities, a 123-acre intermodal yard, 47 acres of ancillary buildings and parking space, a 45-acre container freight station site, 62 acres of industrial co-development, 93 acres of cruise terminals, 99 acres of cruise-related co-development, 121 acres of buffer areas, 26 acres of stormwater management areas beyond those within the buffer areas, and berthing areas and a new turning basin. Dredging of the container and cruise berths to a depth of 40 feet mean low tide (MLT) with a two-foot overdredge would generate approximately 4.95 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Future navigational improvements would include a 1,400-foot-diameter cruise turning basin, dredged to a depth of 33 feet MLT with a two-foot overdredge. Dredging of the turning basin would generate 1.9 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Eventual enlargement of this basin to 1,600 feet in diameter with a depth of 40 feet MLT plus a two-foot overdredge would generate 2.1 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. The total area of dredging, excavation, and fill associated with construction of the berths, turning basin, and adjacent transition areas would be approximately 191 acres. All dredging would be accomplished over a 15- to 20-year period. Dredged material would be earmarked for beneficial uses, such as marsh creations, at other locations in Glaveston Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to helping to meet the need for container terminal facilities at the port, the project would allow the Port Authority to diversify its abilities to meet the needs of ships using cruise terminal facilities. The terminal would create an additional 39,309 direct and indirect jobs. The increase in cargo and cruise activities would generate $10.4 billion in personal income, nearly $19 billion in business revenues, and $5.5 billion in indirect purchase income. This income would increase state and local tax revenues by $1.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging of placement of dredged material would result in temporary turbidity and could release contaminants into the water column. Noise generated by operations equipment would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of some sensitive receptors. Terminal facilities would alter the natural setting of the area significantly. Three archaeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. Seven percent of the area affected by construction would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Approximately 2.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 103.5 acres of other wetlands would be displaced. Approximately 1,038 acres of upland habitat would be displaced. In addition, the project would require dredging of 150 acres of bay bottom and filling of 23.5 acres of intertidal mud flats and bay bottom. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0094D, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030212, Volume II (Text)--401 pages, Volume IIB (Text)-328 pages Volume IV--Figures (Oversize pages), Volume V (Appendices)--491 ages , Volume VII (Comments and Responses)--571 pages, Volume VIII (Comment Letters)--487 pages and maps, Supporting Document I (Comment Letters)--401 pages, Supporting Document II (Comment Letters)--405 pages, Supporting Document III (Comment Letters)--422 pages, May 7, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Buildings KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Galveston Bay KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36439859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+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, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2014-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DAVE LYLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION, YORK AND LANCASTER COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 36426271; 10093 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 10.3-mile extension of Dave Lyle Boulevard (S.C. Route 22) eastward from the city of Rock Hill to a point near U.S. 521 in York and Lancaster counties, South Carolina is proposed. The facility, which would follow a new alignment, would traverse the eastern section of York County and the northern section of Lancaster County. The project is part of the York County Metropolitan Road Corridor Project funded by the State Infrastructure Bank. The project would extend Dave Lyle Boulevard from S.C. Route 161 to S.C. Route 75 in the vicinity of the U.S. 521/S.C. Route 75 intersection near the South Carolina/North Carolina border. The new controlled access highway would provide four lanes, separated by a 48-foot earthen median within a 200-foot right-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and three build alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, four interchanges would provide access to the new roadway to allow traffic along the mainline of the David Lyle Boulevard to flow uninterrupted at a high level of service. Three bridges, six grade separation structures, and one railroad crossing structure would also be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a group of roadway projects designed to improve transportation in York and northern Lancaster counties. Travel on local, regional, and state highway networks would be improved through the provision of a more efficient, safer route between Lancaster and York counties. The project would contribute to infrastructure developments designed to guide growth and help control urban sprawl in both counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the acquisition of 293 acres of land, impacting 73 property owners, displacing 14 to 26 residential units, and impacting community cohesion in some areas. Land requirements would also displace 109.3 acres of farmland and 2.29 acres of wetlands. Noise in excess of federal standards would affect 24 receptors. The project would traverse an area in which one bald eagle nest has been identified. Construction workers would encounter six sites that could contain hazardous wastes. 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 00-436D, Volume 24, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030215, 313 pages and maps, May 7, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-SC-EIS-2000-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina 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/36426271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DAVE+LYLE+BOULEVARD+EXTENSION%2C+YORK+AND+LANCASTER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=DAVE+LYLE+BOULEVARD+EXTENSION%2C+YORK+AND+LANCASTER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36347527; 10090-030212_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a container terminal adjacent to the Port of Houston's Bayport Ship Channel in the city of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas are proposed. Container throughput in Houston has risen at an average annual growth rate of 10 percent since 1992, increasing from 490,000 twenty-ton equivalent units (TEUs) in 1994 to 1.0 million TEUs in 1999. The project site is located on a primarily upland area encompassing 1,091 acres along the south side of the channel and to the west of the Houston Ship Channel, located approximately 25 miles southeast of downtown Houston. The Port Authority currently owns approximately 1,086 acres of land at and near the Bayport site, but not all of that property is part of the project site. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and six Bayport alternatives and six alternatives involving siting of the facilities elsewhere, are considered in this final EIS. The Port Authority's proposal would involve development of 30 acres of wharf, 374 acres for container yard facilities, 71 acres of gate facilities, a 123-acre intermodal yard, 47 acres of ancillary buildings and parking space, a 45-acre container freight station site, 62 acres of industrial co-development, 93 acres of cruise terminals, 99 acres of cruise-related co-development, 121 acres of buffer areas, 26 acres of stormwater management areas beyond those within the buffer areas, and berthing areas and a new turning basin. Dredging of the container and cruise berths to a depth of 40 feet mean low tide (MLT) with a two-foot overdredge would generate approximately 4.95 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Future navigational improvements would include a 1,400-foot-diameter cruise turning basin, dredged to a depth of 33 feet MLT with a two-foot overdredge. Dredging of the turning basin would generate 1.9 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Eventual enlargement of this basin to 1,600 feet in diameter with a depth of 40 feet MLT plus a two-foot overdredge would generate 2.1 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. The total area of dredging, excavation, and fill associated with construction of the berths, turning basin, and adjacent transition areas would be approximately 191 acres. All dredging would be accomplished over a 15- to 20-year period. Dredged material would be earmarked for beneficial uses, such as marsh creations, at other locations in Glaveston Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to helping to meet the need for container terminal facilities at the port, the project would allow the Port Authority to diversify its abilities to meet the needs of ships using cruise terminal facilities. The terminal would create an additional 39,309 direct and indirect jobs. The increase in cargo and cruise activities would generate $10.4 billion in personal income, nearly $19 billion in business revenues, and $5.5 billion in indirect purchase income. This income would increase state and local tax revenues by $1.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging of placement of dredged material would result in temporary turbidity and could release contaminants into the water column. Noise generated by operations equipment would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of some sensitive receptors. Terminal facilities would alter the natural setting of the area significantly. Three archaeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. Seven percent of the area affected by construction would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Approximately 2.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 103.5 acres of other wetlands would be displaced. Approximately 1,038 acres of upland habitat would be displaced. In addition, the project would require dredging of 150 acres of bay bottom and filling of 23.5 acres of intertidal mud flats and bay bottom. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0094D, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030212, Volume II (Text)--401 pages, Volume IIB (Text)-328 pages Volume IV--Figures (Oversize pages), Volume V (Appendices)--491 ages , Volume VII (Comments and Responses)--571 pages, Volume VIII (Comment Letters)--487 pages and maps, Supporting Document I (Comment Letters)--401 pages, Supporting Document II (Comment Letters)--405 pages, Supporting Document III (Comment Letters)--422 pages, May 7, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Buildings KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Galveston Bay KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+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, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DAVE LYLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION, YORK AND LANCASTER COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DAVE LYLE BOULEVARD EXTENSION, YORK AND LANCASTER COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA. AN - 36346755; 10093-030215_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 10.3-mile extension of Dave Lyle Boulevard (S.C. Route 22) eastward from the city of Rock Hill to a point near U.S. 521 in York and Lancaster counties, South Carolina is proposed. The facility, which would follow a new alignment, would traverse the eastern section of York County and the northern section of Lancaster County. The project is part of the York County Metropolitan Road Corridor Project funded by the State Infrastructure Bank. The project would extend Dave Lyle Boulevard from S.C. Route 161 to S.C. Route 75 in the vicinity of the U.S. 521/S.C. Route 75 intersection near the South Carolina/North Carolina border. The new controlled access highway would provide four lanes, separated by a 48-foot earthen median within a 200-foot right-of-way. Five alternatives, including a No Build Alternative and three build alternatives, are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative, four interchanges would provide access to the new roadway to allow traffic along the mainline of the David Lyle Boulevard to flow uninterrupted at a high level of service. Three bridges, six grade separation structures, and one railroad crossing structure would also be constructed. Cost of the preferred alternative is estimated at $86.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would complete a group of roadway projects designed to improve transportation in York and northern Lancaster counties. Travel on local, regional, and state highway networks would be improved through the provision of a more efficient, safer route between Lancaster and York counties. The project would contribute to infrastructure developments designed to guide growth and help control urban sprawl in both counties. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rights-of-way requirements would result in the acquisition of 293 acres of land, impacting 73 property owners, displacing 14 to 26 residential units, and impacting community cohesion in some areas. Land requirements would also displace 109.3 acres of farmland and 2.29 acres of wetlands. Noise in excess of federal standards would affect 24 receptors. The project would traverse an area in which one bald eagle nest has been identified. Construction workers would encounter six sites that could contain hazardous wastes. 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 00-436D, Volume 24, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030215, 313 pages and maps, May 7, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-SC-EIS-2000-01-D KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroad Structures KW - Relocation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Wetlands KW - South Carolina 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/36346755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DAVE+LYLE+BOULEVARD+EXTENSION%2C+YORK+AND+LANCASTER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=DAVE+LYLE+BOULEVARD+EXTENSION%2C+YORK+AND+LANCASTER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Columbia, South Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36346710; 10090-030212_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a container terminal adjacent to the Port of Houston's Bayport Ship Channel in the city of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas are proposed. Container throughput in Houston has risen at an average annual growth rate of 10 percent since 1992, increasing from 490,000 twenty-ton equivalent units (TEUs) in 1994 to 1.0 million TEUs in 1999. The project site is located on a primarily upland area encompassing 1,091 acres along the south side of the channel and to the west of the Houston Ship Channel, located approximately 25 miles southeast of downtown Houston. The Port Authority currently owns approximately 1,086 acres of land at and near the Bayport site, but not all of that property is part of the project site. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and six Bayport alternatives and six alternatives involving siting of the facilities elsewhere, are considered in this final EIS. The Port Authority's proposal would involve development of 30 acres of wharf, 374 acres for container yard facilities, 71 acres of gate facilities, a 123-acre intermodal yard, 47 acres of ancillary buildings and parking space, a 45-acre container freight station site, 62 acres of industrial co-development, 93 acres of cruise terminals, 99 acres of cruise-related co-development, 121 acres of buffer areas, 26 acres of stormwater management areas beyond those within the buffer areas, and berthing areas and a new turning basin. Dredging of the container and cruise berths to a depth of 40 feet mean low tide (MLT) with a two-foot overdredge would generate approximately 4.95 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Future navigational improvements would include a 1,400-foot-diameter cruise turning basin, dredged to a depth of 33 feet MLT with a two-foot overdredge. Dredging of the turning basin would generate 1.9 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Eventual enlargement of this basin to 1,600 feet in diameter with a depth of 40 feet MLT plus a two-foot overdredge would generate 2.1 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. The total area of dredging, excavation, and fill associated with construction of the berths, turning basin, and adjacent transition areas would be approximately 191 acres. All dredging would be accomplished over a 15- to 20-year period. Dredged material would be earmarked for beneficial uses, such as marsh creations, at other locations in Glaveston Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to helping to meet the need for container terminal facilities at the port, the project would allow the Port Authority to diversify its abilities to meet the needs of ships using cruise terminal facilities. The terminal would create an additional 39,309 direct and indirect jobs. The increase in cargo and cruise activities would generate $10.4 billion in personal income, nearly $19 billion in business revenues, and $5.5 billion in indirect purchase income. This income would increase state and local tax revenues by $1.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging of placement of dredged material would result in temporary turbidity and could release contaminants into the water column. Noise generated by operations equipment would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of some sensitive receptors. Terminal facilities would alter the natural setting of the area significantly. Three archaeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. Seven percent of the area affected by construction would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Approximately 2.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 103.5 acres of other wetlands would be displaced. Approximately 1,038 acres of upland habitat would be displaced. In addition, the project would require dredging of 150 acres of bay bottom and filling of 23.5 acres of intertidal mud flats and bay bottom. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0094D, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030212, Volume II (Text)--401 pages, Volume IIB (Text)-328 pages Volume IV--Figures (Oversize pages), Volume V (Appendices)--491 ages , Volume VII (Comments and Responses)--571 pages, Volume VIII (Comment Letters)--487 pages and maps, Supporting Document I (Comment Letters)--401 pages, Supporting Document II (Comment Letters)--405 pages, Supporting Document III (Comment Letters)--422 pages, May 7, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Buildings KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Galveston Bay KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+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, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36346521; 10090-030212_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a container terminal adjacent to the Port of Houston's Bayport Ship Channel in the city of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas are proposed. Container throughput in Houston has risen at an average annual growth rate of 10 percent since 1992, increasing from 490,000 twenty-ton equivalent units (TEUs) in 1994 to 1.0 million TEUs in 1999. The project site is located on a primarily upland area encompassing 1,091 acres along the south side of the channel and to the west of the Houston Ship Channel, located approximately 25 miles southeast of downtown Houston. The Port Authority currently owns approximately 1,086 acres of land at and near the Bayport site, but not all of that property is part of the project site. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and six Bayport alternatives and six alternatives involving siting of the facilities elsewhere, are considered in this final EIS. The Port Authority's proposal would involve development of 30 acres of wharf, 374 acres for container yard facilities, 71 acres of gate facilities, a 123-acre intermodal yard, 47 acres of ancillary buildings and parking space, a 45-acre container freight station site, 62 acres of industrial co-development, 93 acres of cruise terminals, 99 acres of cruise-related co-development, 121 acres of buffer areas, 26 acres of stormwater management areas beyond those within the buffer areas, and berthing areas and a new turning basin. Dredging of the container and cruise berths to a depth of 40 feet mean low tide (MLT) with a two-foot overdredge would generate approximately 4.95 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Future navigational improvements would include a 1,400-foot-diameter cruise turning basin, dredged to a depth of 33 feet MLT with a two-foot overdredge. Dredging of the turning basin would generate 1.9 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Eventual enlargement of this basin to 1,600 feet in diameter with a depth of 40 feet MLT plus a two-foot overdredge would generate 2.1 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. The total area of dredging, excavation, and fill associated with construction of the berths, turning basin, and adjacent transition areas would be approximately 191 acres. All dredging would be accomplished over a 15- to 20-year period. Dredged material would be earmarked for beneficial uses, such as marsh creations, at other locations in Glaveston Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to helping to meet the need for container terminal facilities at the port, the project would allow the Port Authority to diversify its abilities to meet the needs of ships using cruise terminal facilities. The terminal would create an additional 39,309 direct and indirect jobs. The increase in cargo and cruise activities would generate $10.4 billion in personal income, nearly $19 billion in business revenues, and $5.5 billion in indirect purchase income. This income would increase state and local tax revenues by $1.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging of placement of dredged material would result in temporary turbidity and could release contaminants into the water column. Noise generated by operations equipment would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of some sensitive receptors. Terminal facilities would alter the natural setting of the area significantly. Three archaeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. Seven percent of the area affected by construction would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Approximately 2.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 103.5 acres of other wetlands would be displaced. Approximately 1,038 acres of upland habitat would be displaced. In addition, the project would require dredging of 150 acres of bay bottom and filling of 23.5 acres of intertidal mud flats and bay bottom. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0094D, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030212, Volume II (Text)--401 pages, Volume IIB (Text)-328 pages Volume IV--Figures (Oversize pages), Volume V (Appendices)--491 ages , Volume VII (Comments and Responses)--571 pages, Volume VIII (Comment Letters)--487 pages and maps, Supporting Document I (Comment Letters)--401 pages, Supporting Document II (Comment Letters)--405 pages, Supporting Document III (Comment Letters)--422 pages, May 7, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Buildings KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Galveston Bay KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+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, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - PORT OF HOUSTON BAYPORT CHANNEL CONTAINER/CRUISE TERMINAL, PASADENA, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 36344662; 10090-030212_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a container terminal adjacent to the Port of Houston's Bayport Ship Channel in the city of Pasadena, Harris County, Texas are proposed. Container throughput in Houston has risen at an average annual growth rate of 10 percent since 1992, increasing from 490,000 twenty-ton equivalent units (TEUs) in 1994 to 1.0 million TEUs in 1999. The project site is located on a primarily upland area encompassing 1,091 acres along the south side of the channel and to the west of the Houston Ship Channel, located approximately 25 miles southeast of downtown Houston. The Port Authority currently owns approximately 1,086 acres of land at and near the Bayport site, but not all of that property is part of the project site. Thirteen alternatives, including a No Action Alternative and six Bayport alternatives and six alternatives involving siting of the facilities elsewhere, are considered in this final EIS. The Port Authority's proposal would involve development of 30 acres of wharf, 374 acres for container yard facilities, 71 acres of gate facilities, a 123-acre intermodal yard, 47 acres of ancillary buildings and parking space, a 45-acre container freight station site, 62 acres of industrial co-development, 93 acres of cruise terminals, 99 acres of cruise-related co-development, 121 acres of buffer areas, 26 acres of stormwater management areas beyond those within the buffer areas, and berthing areas and a new turning basin. Dredging of the container and cruise berths to a depth of 40 feet mean low tide (MLT) with a two-foot overdredge would generate approximately 4.95 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Future navigational improvements would include a 1,400-foot-diameter cruise turning basin, dredged to a depth of 33 feet MLT with a two-foot overdredge. Dredging of the turning basin would generate 1.9 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. Eventual enlargement of this basin to 1,600 feet in diameter with a depth of 40 feet MLT plus a two-foot overdredge would generate 2.1 million cubic yards of dredge spoil. The total area of dredging, excavation, and fill associated with construction of the berths, turning basin, and adjacent transition areas would be approximately 191 acres. All dredging would be accomplished over a 15- to 20-year period. Dredged material would be earmarked for beneficial uses, such as marsh creations, at other locations in Glaveston Bay. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to helping to meet the need for container terminal facilities at the port, the project would allow the Port Authority to diversify its abilities to meet the needs of ships using cruise terminal facilities. The terminal would create an additional 39,309 direct and indirect jobs. The increase in cargo and cruise activities would generate $10.4 billion in personal income, nearly $19 billion in business revenues, and $5.5 billion in indirect purchase income. This income would increase state and local tax revenues by $1.1 billion. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging of placement of dredged material would result in temporary turbidity and could release contaminants into the water column. Noise generated by operations equipment would exceed federal standards in the vicinity of some sensitive receptors. Terminal facilities would alter the natural setting of the area significantly. Three archaeological sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places would be displaced. Seven percent of the area affected by construction would lie within a 100-year floodplain. Approximately 2.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 103.5 acres of other wetlands would be displaced. Approximately 1,038 acres of upland habitat would be displaced. In addition, the project would require dredging of 150 acres of bay bottom and filling of 23.5 acres of intertidal mud flats and bay bottom. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0094D, Volume 26, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 030212, Volume II (Text)--401 pages, Volume IIB (Text)-328 pages Volume IV--Figures (Oversize pages), Volume V (Appendices)--491 ages , Volume VII (Comments and Responses)--571 pages, Volume VIII (Comment Letters)--487 pages and maps, Supporting Document I (Comment Letters)--401 pages, Supporting Document II (Comment Letters)--405 pages, Supporting Document III (Comment Letters)--422 pages, May 7, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Bays KW - Buildings KW - Channels KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Dredging Surveys KW - Employment KW - Floodplains KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbor Structures KW - Harbors KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Sediment Assessments KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Galveston Bay KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=PORT+OF+HOUSTON+BAYPORT+CHANNEL+CONTAINER%2FCRUISE+TERMINAL%2C+PASADENA%2C+HARRIS+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, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 7, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AN - 36438260; 10089 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a hotel and casino complex on the north shore of the Black Bay of Biloxi in the city of D'Iberville, Harrison, County, Mississippi are proposed. The facility would serve visitors to the Gulf Coast in that area. The pertinent state legislation has lead to the development of numerous casinos in southern Mississippi; the act requires gaming facilities to be located on navigable waters. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to Interstate 110. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to the site setting, including climate and land use; infrastructure; transportation requirements; air and water quality; geology and soils; hazardous materials and wastes; historical and archaeologic resources; and the socioeconomic environment. Five categories of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives include the proposed action, two site alternatives, two layout alternatives, and three traffic control alternatives. The proposed action would construct and operate the facilities on a 9.6-acre site; the developers currently own or have the option to purchase the parcels comprising the proposed site. Access roads would be improved. Functional value of the 12-acre salt marsh adjacent to the site would improve significantly after marsh restoration activities take place. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino and hotel complex would result in local and regional socioeconomic benefits, including increased employment, tax revenues, community cohesion, community services, and property values. The proposed action would not have a significant impact on the resources in the area of influence. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action 9.26 acres of upland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed by site development activities. Minimal adverse impacts would affect the site area, place some stress on infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure, and result in minimal impacts to ecological resources. Site development would require 1,500 cubic yards of dredging. Casino structures to be placed over water in the Back Bay would affect 2.24 acres for placement of a casino barge and 0.98 acre for parking developments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030211, 781 pages and maps, May 5, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Barges KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi 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/36438260?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.title=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI [Part 3 of 3] T2 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AN - 36384017; 10089-030211_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a hotel and casino complex on the north shore of the Black Bay of Biloxi in the city of D'Iberville, Harrison, County, Mississippi are proposed. The facility would serve visitors to the Gulf Coast in that area. The pertinent state legislation has lead to the development of numerous casinos in southern Mississippi; the act requires gaming facilities to be located on navigable waters. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to Interstate 110. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to the site setting, including climate and land use; infrastructure; transportation requirements; air and water quality; geology and soils; hazardous materials and wastes; historical and archaeologic resources; and the socioeconomic environment. Five categories of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives include the proposed action, two site alternatives, two layout alternatives, and three traffic control alternatives. The proposed action would construct and operate the facilities on a 9.6-acre site; the developers currently own or have the option to purchase the parcels comprising the proposed site. Access roads would be improved. Functional value of the 12-acre salt marsh adjacent to the site would improve significantly after marsh restoration activities take place. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino and hotel complex would result in local and regional socioeconomic benefits, including increased employment, tax revenues, community cohesion, community services, and property values. The proposed action would not have a significant impact on the resources in the area of influence. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action 9.26 acres of upland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed by site development activities. Minimal adverse impacts would affect the site area, place some stress on infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure, and result in minimal impacts to ecological resources. Site development would require 1,500 cubic yards of dredging. Casino structures to be placed over water in the Back Bay would affect 2.24 acres for placement of a casino barge and 0.98 acre for parking developments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030211, 781 pages and maps, May 5, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Barges KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi 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/36384017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.title=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI [Part 1 of 3] T2 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AN - 36382356; 10089-030211_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a hotel and casino complex on the north shore of the Black Bay of Biloxi in the city of D'Iberville, Harrison, County, Mississippi are proposed. The facility would serve visitors to the Gulf Coast in that area. The pertinent state legislation has lead to the development of numerous casinos in southern Mississippi; the act requires gaming facilities to be located on navigable waters. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to Interstate 110. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to the site setting, including climate and land use; infrastructure; transportation requirements; air and water quality; geology and soils; hazardous materials and wastes; historical and archaeologic resources; and the socioeconomic environment. Five categories of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives include the proposed action, two site alternatives, two layout alternatives, and three traffic control alternatives. The proposed action would construct and operate the facilities on a 9.6-acre site; the developers currently own or have the option to purchase the parcels comprising the proposed site. Access roads would be improved. Functional value of the 12-acre salt marsh adjacent to the site would improve significantly after marsh restoration activities take place. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino and hotel complex would result in local and regional socioeconomic benefits, including increased employment, tax revenues, community cohesion, community services, and property values. The proposed action would not have a significant impact on the resources in the area of influence. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action 9.26 acres of upland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed by site development activities. Minimal adverse impacts would affect the site area, place some stress on infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure, and result in minimal impacts to ecological resources. Site development would require 1,500 cubic yards of dredging. Casino structures to be placed over water in the Back Bay would affect 2.24 acres for placement of a casino barge and 0.98 acre for parking developments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030211, 781 pages and maps, May 5, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Barges KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi 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/36382356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.title=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI [Part 2 of 3] T2 - ROYAL D'IBERVILLE HOTEL AND CASINO DEVELOPMENT AT THE CITY OF D'IBERVILLE IN HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI AN - 36380682; 10089-030211_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a hotel and casino complex on the north shore of the Black Bay of Biloxi in the city of D'Iberville, Harrison, County, Mississippi are proposed. The facility would serve visitors to the Gulf Coast in that area. The pertinent state legislation has lead to the development of numerous casinos in southern Mississippi; the act requires gaming facilities to be located on navigable waters. The site is located immediately west and adjacent to Interstate 110. Key issues addressed during scoping include those related to the site setting, including climate and land use; infrastructure; transportation requirements; air and water quality; geology and soils; hazardous materials and wastes; historical and archaeologic resources; and the socioeconomic environment. Five categories of alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Action alternatives include the proposed action, two site alternatives, two layout alternatives, and three traffic control alternatives. The proposed action would construct and operate the facilities on a 9.6-acre site; the developers currently own or have the option to purchase the parcels comprising the proposed site. Access roads would be improved. Functional value of the 12-acre salt marsh adjacent to the site would improve significantly after marsh restoration activities take place. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The casino and hotel complex would result in local and regional socioeconomic benefits, including increased employment, tax revenues, community cohesion, community services, and property values. The proposed action would not have a significant impact on the resources in the area of influence. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the proposed action 9.26 acres of upland vegetation, and the associated wildlife habitat, would be disturbed by site development activities. Minimal adverse impacts would affect the site area, place some stress on infrastructure, particularly transportation infrastructure, and result in minimal impacts to ecological resources. Site development would require 1,500 cubic yards of dredging. Casino structures to be placed over water in the Back Bay would affect 2.24 acres for placement of a casino barge and 0.98 acre for parking developments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 030211, 781 pages and maps, May 5, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Barges KW - Hotels KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Navigation KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Resorts KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Mississippi 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/36380682?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-05-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.title=ROYAL+D%27IBERVILLE+HOTEL+AND+CASINO+DEVELOPMENT+AT+THE+CITY+OF+D%27IBERVILLE+IN+HARRISON+COUNTY%2C+MISSISSIPPI&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 5, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Observations of acoustic surface waves in outdoor sound propagation. AN - 85368840; pmid-12765369 AB - Acoustic surface waves have been detected propagating outdoors under natural conditions. Two critical experimental conditions were employed to ensure the conclusive detection of these waves. First, acoustic pulses rather than a continuous wave source allowed an examination of the waveform shape and avoided the masking of wave arrivals. Second, a snow cover provided favorable ground impedance conditions for surface waves to exist. The acoustic pulses were generated by blank pistol shots fired 1 m above the snow. The resultant waveforms were measured using a vertical array of six microphones located 60 m away from the source at heights between 0.1 and 4.75 m. A strong, low frequency "tail" following the initial arrival was recorded near the snow surface. This tail, and its exponential decay with height (z) above the surface (approximately e(-alpha z)), are diagnostic features of surface waves. The measured attenuation coefficient alpha was 0.28 m(-1). The identification of the surface wave is confirmed by comparing the measured waveforms with waveforms predicted by the theoretical evaluation of the explicit surface wave pole term using residue theory. JF - The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America AU - Albert, Donald G AD - U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-1290, USA. dalbert@crrel.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2003/05// PY - 2003 DA - May 2003 SP - 2495 EP - 2500 VL - 113 IS - 5 SN - 0001-4966, 0001-4966 KW - Index Medicus KW - National Library of Medicine KW - *Acoustics KW - Humans KW - Models, Theoretical KW - Sound UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/85368840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Acomdisdome&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=The+Journal+of+the+Acoustical+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Observations+of+acoustic+surface+waves+in+outdoor+sound+propagation.&rft.au=Albert%2C+Donald+G&rft.aulast=Albert&rft.aufirst=Donald&rft.date=2003-05-01&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=2495&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=The+Journal+of+the+Acoustical+Society+of+America&rft.issn=00014966&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English (eng) DB - ComDisDome N1 - Date revised - 2011-12-15 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-13 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Root growth and metal uptake in four grasses grown on zinc-contaminated soils. AN - 73393338; 12809284 AB - Depth and area of rooting are important to long-term survival of plants on metal-contaminated, steep-slope soils. We evaluated shoot and root growth and metal uptake of four cool-season grasses grown on a high-Zn soil in a greenhouse. A mixture of biosolids, fly ash, and burnt lime was placed either directly over a Zn-contaminated soil or over a clean, fine-grained topsoil and then the Zn-contaminated soil; the control was the clean topsoil. The grasses were 'Reliant' hard fescue (Festuca brevipila R. Tracey), 'Oahe' intermediate wheatgrass [Elytrigia intermedia (Host) Nevski subsp. intermedia], 'Ruebens' Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa L.), and 'K-31' tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.). Root growth in the clean soil and biosolids corresponded to the characteristic rooting ability of each species, while rooting into the Zn-contaminated soil was related to the species' tolerance to Zn. While wheatgrass and tall fescue had the strongest root growth in the surface layers (0-5 cm) of clean soil or biosolids, wheatgrass roots were at least two times more dense than those of the other grasses in the second layer (5-27 cm) of Zn-contaminated soil. When grown over Zn-contaminated soil in the second layer, hard fescue (with 422 mg/kg Zn) was the only species not to have phytotoxic levels of Zn in shoots; tall fescue had the highest Zn uptake (1553 mg/kg). Thus, the best long-term survivors in high-Zn soils should be wheatgrass, due to its ability to root deeply into Zn-contaminated soils, and hard fescue, with its ability to effectively exclude toxic Zn uptake. JF - Journal of environmental quality AU - Palazzo, Antonio J AU - Cary, Timothy J AU - Hardy, Susan E AU - Lee, C Richard AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755, USA. antonio.j.palazzo@erdc.usace.army.mil PY - 2003 SP - 834 EP - 840 VL - 32 IS - 3 SN - 0047-2425, 0047-2425 KW - Soil Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Zinc KW - J41CSQ7QDS KW - Index Medicus KW - Plant Roots -- growth & development KW - Plant Roots -- chemistry KW - Survival Analysis KW - Poaceae -- growth & development KW - Zinc -- pharmacokinetics KW - Soil Pollutants -- pharmacokinetics KW - Soil Pollutants -- adverse effects KW - Zinc -- adverse effects UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/73393338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+environmental+quality&rft.atitle=Root+growth+and+metal+uptake+in+four+grasses+grown+on+zinc-contaminated+soils.&rft.au=Palazzo%2C+Antonio+J%3BCary%2C+Timothy+J%3BHardy%2C+Susan+E%3BLee%2C+C+Richard&rft.aulast=Palazzo&rft.aufirst=Antonio&rft.date=2003-05-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=834&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+environmental+quality&rft.issn=00472425&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2003-11-18 N1 - Date created - 2003-06-17 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36438525; 10078 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a surface lignite mine, to be known as the Three Oaks Mine, east of Austin in Lee and Bastrop counties, Texas are proposed. The state permit area for the proposed project encompasses 16,062 acres. The applicant, Alcoa Inc., would develop and operate the mine. In addition to the mine pits, project facilities would include a central blending facility, a haul road and overland conveyor, surface water control features, power lines, a substation, relocated roads, maintenance facilities, offices, and groundwater wells. Implementation of the project would begin in 2003, with operating commencing by 2004 and continuing for a period of approximately 25 years. The project would include the mining of an average of 7.0 million tons of lignite per year in sequential mine pits. The lignite would be trucked to a central blending facility and subsequently transported via haul road or overland conveyor to four existing electrical power generating units located near Rockdale in Milam County. Overburden and soil materials would be selectively replaced in the previously mined pits. The mined area would be reshaped and recontoured to the desired post-mine topography, and the mined area would be revegetated. Following completion of mining activities, the project would be closed and all areas reclaimed. In addition to Alcoa's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would provide a fuel source replacement for the Sandow Mine, which is currently operated near Rockdale; the Sandow Mine has been in operation since the 1950s and will cease operations by 2005. Mining employment in this region of Texas would continue to be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 8,648 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat within the project area would be disturbed over the 25-year life of the mine. An additional six acres would be disturbed due to the relocation of roads outside the permit area to provide access to the mining operation. Mining would permanently alter the topography of the site, and topographic depressions could develop. Up to 12,000 acre-feet of groundwater would be pumped annually for mine dewatering and depressurization purposes, significantly depressing the level of the regional aquifer and affecting area wetlands and surface water flows. Approximately 38 miles of intermittent and ephermeral stream channels and 150 stock ponds would be eliminated. A total of 67.4 acresof jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected, though these impacts would be mitigated somewhat by the creation of wetlands and riparian woodland at a mitigation site. Several existing county roads and utility lines would require relocation. Power lines would pose a collision hazard to birds, particularly raptors. Numerous paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed, and 134 cultural sites, including five sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be disturbed. Construction and operation activities would degrade local air quality and emit noise, and the mine and associated facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Fuels and other hazardous materials would be transported to and from the site and stored at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0376D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030199, Volume I--677 pages and maps, Volume II--496 pages, April 30, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36438525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+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, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36347705; 10078-030199_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a surface lignite mine, to be known as the Three Oaks Mine, east of Austin in Lee and Bastrop counties, Texas are proposed. The state permit area for the proposed project encompasses 16,062 acres. The applicant, Alcoa Inc., would develop and operate the mine. In addition to the mine pits, project facilities would include a central blending facility, a haul road and overland conveyor, surface water control features, power lines, a substation, relocated roads, maintenance facilities, offices, and groundwater wells. Implementation of the project would begin in 2003, with operating commencing by 2004 and continuing for a period of approximately 25 years. The project would include the mining of an average of 7.0 million tons of lignite per year in sequential mine pits. The lignite would be trucked to a central blending facility and subsequently transported via haul road or overland conveyor to four existing electrical power generating units located near Rockdale in Milam County. Overburden and soil materials would be selectively replaced in the previously mined pits. The mined area would be reshaped and recontoured to the desired post-mine topography, and the mined area would be revegetated. Following completion of mining activities, the project would be closed and all areas reclaimed. In addition to Alcoa's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would provide a fuel source replacement for the Sandow Mine, which is currently operated near Rockdale; the Sandow Mine has been in operation since the 1950s and will cease operations by 2005. Mining employment in this region of Texas would continue to be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 8,648 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat within the project area would be disturbed over the 25-year life of the mine. An additional six acres would be disturbed due to the relocation of roads outside the permit area to provide access to the mining operation. Mining would permanently alter the topography of the site, and topographic depressions could develop. Up to 12,000 acre-feet of groundwater would be pumped annually for mine dewatering and depressurization purposes, significantly depressing the level of the regional aquifer and affecting area wetlands and surface water flows. Approximately 38 miles of intermittent and ephermeral stream channels and 150 stock ponds would be eliminated. A total of 67.4 acresof jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected, though these impacts would be mitigated somewhat by the creation of wetlands and riparian woodland at a mitigation site. Several existing county roads and utility lines would require relocation. Power lines would pose a collision hazard to birds, particularly raptors. Numerous paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed, and 134 cultural sites, including five sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be disturbed. Construction and operation activities would degrade local air quality and emit noise, and the mine and associated facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Fuels and other hazardous materials would be transported to and from the site and stored at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0376D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030199, Volume I--677 pages and maps, Volume II--496 pages, April 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+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, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36347062; 10078-030199_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a surface lignite mine, to be known as the Three Oaks Mine, east of Austin in Lee and Bastrop counties, Texas are proposed. The state permit area for the proposed project encompasses 16,062 acres. The applicant, Alcoa Inc., would develop and operate the mine. In addition to the mine pits, project facilities would include a central blending facility, a haul road and overland conveyor, surface water control features, power lines, a substation, relocated roads, maintenance facilities, offices, and groundwater wells. Implementation of the project would begin in 2003, with operating commencing by 2004 and continuing for a period of approximately 25 years. The project would include the mining of an average of 7.0 million tons of lignite per year in sequential mine pits. The lignite would be trucked to a central blending facility and subsequently transported via haul road or overland conveyor to four existing electrical power generating units located near Rockdale in Milam County. Overburden and soil materials would be selectively replaced in the previously mined pits. The mined area would be reshaped and recontoured to the desired post-mine topography, and the mined area would be revegetated. Following completion of mining activities, the project would be closed and all areas reclaimed. In addition to Alcoa's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would provide a fuel source replacement for the Sandow Mine, which is currently operated near Rockdale; the Sandow Mine has been in operation since the 1950s and will cease operations by 2005. Mining employment in this region of Texas would continue to be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 8,648 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat within the project area would be disturbed over the 25-year life of the mine. An additional six acres would be disturbed due to the relocation of roads outside the permit area to provide access to the mining operation. Mining would permanently alter the topography of the site, and topographic depressions could develop. Up to 12,000 acre-feet of groundwater would be pumped annually for mine dewatering and depressurization purposes, significantly depressing the level of the regional aquifer and affecting area wetlands and surface water flows. Approximately 38 miles of intermittent and ephermeral stream channels and 150 stock ponds would be eliminated. A total of 67.4 acresof jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected, though these impacts would be mitigated somewhat by the creation of wetlands and riparian woodland at a mitigation site. Several existing county roads and utility lines would require relocation. Power lines would pose a collision hazard to birds, particularly raptors. Numerous paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed, and 134 cultural sites, including five sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be disturbed. Construction and operation activities would degrade local air quality and emit noise, and the mine and associated facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Fuels and other hazardous materials would be transported to and from the site and stored at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0376D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030199, Volume I--677 pages and maps, Volume II--496 pages, April 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36347062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+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, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36346937; 10078-030199_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a surface lignite mine, to be known as the Three Oaks Mine, east of Austin in Lee and Bastrop counties, Texas are proposed. The state permit area for the proposed project encompasses 16,062 acres. The applicant, Alcoa Inc., would develop and operate the mine. In addition to the mine pits, project facilities would include a central blending facility, a haul road and overland conveyor, surface water control features, power lines, a substation, relocated roads, maintenance facilities, offices, and groundwater wells. Implementation of the project would begin in 2003, with operating commencing by 2004 and continuing for a period of approximately 25 years. The project would include the mining of an average of 7.0 million tons of lignite per year in sequential mine pits. The lignite would be trucked to a central blending facility and subsequently transported via haul road or overland conveyor to four existing electrical power generating units located near Rockdale in Milam County. Overburden and soil materials would be selectively replaced in the previously mined pits. The mined area would be reshaped and recontoured to the desired post-mine topography, and the mined area would be revegetated. Following completion of mining activities, the project would be closed and all areas reclaimed. In addition to Alcoa's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would provide a fuel source replacement for the Sandow Mine, which is currently operated near Rockdale; the Sandow Mine has been in operation since the 1950s and will cease operations by 2005. Mining employment in this region of Texas would continue to be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 8,648 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat within the project area would be disturbed over the 25-year life of the mine. An additional six acres would be disturbed due to the relocation of roads outside the permit area to provide access to the mining operation. Mining would permanently alter the topography of the site, and topographic depressions could develop. Up to 12,000 acre-feet of groundwater would be pumped annually for mine dewatering and depressurization purposes, significantly depressing the level of the regional aquifer and affecting area wetlands and surface water flows. Approximately 38 miles of intermittent and ephermeral stream channels and 150 stock ponds would be eliminated. A total of 67.4 acresof jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected, though these impacts would be mitigated somewhat by the creation of wetlands and riparian woodland at a mitigation site. Several existing county roads and utility lines would require relocation. Power lines would pose a collision hazard to birds, particularly raptors. Numerous paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed, and 134 cultural sites, including five sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be disturbed. Construction and operation activities would degrade local air quality and emit noise, and the mine and associated facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Fuels and other hazardous materials would be transported to and from the site and stored at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0376D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030199, Volume I--677 pages and maps, Volume II--496 pages, April 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346937?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+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, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36346445; 10078-030199_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a surface lignite mine, to be known as the Three Oaks Mine, east of Austin in Lee and Bastrop counties, Texas are proposed. The state permit area for the proposed project encompasses 16,062 acres. The applicant, Alcoa Inc., would develop and operate the mine. In addition to the mine pits, project facilities would include a central blending facility, a haul road and overland conveyor, surface water control features, power lines, a substation, relocated roads, maintenance facilities, offices, and groundwater wells. Implementation of the project would begin in 2003, with operating commencing by 2004 and continuing for a period of approximately 25 years. The project would include the mining of an average of 7.0 million tons of lignite per year in sequential mine pits. The lignite would be trucked to a central blending facility and subsequently transported via haul road or overland conveyor to four existing electrical power generating units located near Rockdale in Milam County. Overburden and soil materials would be selectively replaced in the previously mined pits. The mined area would be reshaped and recontoured to the desired post-mine topography, and the mined area would be revegetated. Following completion of mining activities, the project would be closed and all areas reclaimed. In addition to Alcoa's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would provide a fuel source replacement for the Sandow Mine, which is currently operated near Rockdale; the Sandow Mine has been in operation since the 1950s and will cease operations by 2005. Mining employment in this region of Texas would continue to be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 8,648 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat within the project area would be disturbed over the 25-year life of the mine. An additional six acres would be disturbed due to the relocation of roads outside the permit area to provide access to the mining operation. Mining would permanently alter the topography of the site, and topographic depressions could develop. Up to 12,000 acre-feet of groundwater would be pumped annually for mine dewatering and depressurization purposes, significantly depressing the level of the regional aquifer and affecting area wetlands and surface water flows. Approximately 38 miles of intermittent and ephermeral stream channels and 150 stock ponds would be eliminated. A total of 67.4 acresof jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected, though these impacts would be mitigated somewhat by the creation of wetlands and riparian woodland at a mitigation site. Several existing county roads and utility lines would require relocation. Power lines would pose a collision hazard to birds, particularly raptors. Numerous paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed, and 134 cultural sites, including five sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be disturbed. Construction and operation activities would degrade local air quality and emit noise, and the mine and associated facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Fuels and other hazardous materials would be transported to and from the site and stored at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0376D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030199, Volume I--677 pages and maps, Volume II--496 pages, April 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+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, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36346363; 10078-030199_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a surface lignite mine, to be known as the Three Oaks Mine, east of Austin in Lee and Bastrop counties, Texas are proposed. The state permit area for the proposed project encompasses 16,062 acres. The applicant, Alcoa Inc., would develop and operate the mine. In addition to the mine pits, project facilities would include a central blending facility, a haul road and overland conveyor, surface water control features, power lines, a substation, relocated roads, maintenance facilities, offices, and groundwater wells. Implementation of the project would begin in 2003, with operating commencing by 2004 and continuing for a period of approximately 25 years. The project would include the mining of an average of 7.0 million tons of lignite per year in sequential mine pits. The lignite would be trucked to a central blending facility and subsequently transported via haul road or overland conveyor to four existing electrical power generating units located near Rockdale in Milam County. Overburden and soil materials would be selectively replaced in the previously mined pits. The mined area would be reshaped and recontoured to the desired post-mine topography, and the mined area would be revegetated. Following completion of mining activities, the project would be closed and all areas reclaimed. In addition to Alcoa's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would provide a fuel source replacement for the Sandow Mine, which is currently operated near Rockdale; the Sandow Mine has been in operation since the 1950s and will cease operations by 2005. Mining employment in this region of Texas would continue to be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 8,648 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat within the project area would be disturbed over the 25-year life of the mine. An additional six acres would be disturbed due to the relocation of roads outside the permit area to provide access to the mining operation. Mining would permanently alter the topography of the site, and topographic depressions could develop. Up to 12,000 acre-feet of groundwater would be pumped annually for mine dewatering and depressurization purposes, significantly depressing the level of the regional aquifer and affecting area wetlands and surface water flows. Approximately 38 miles of intermittent and ephermeral stream channels and 150 stock ponds would be eliminated. A total of 67.4 acresof jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected, though these impacts would be mitigated somewhat by the creation of wetlands and riparian woodland at a mitigation site. Several existing county roads and utility lines would require relocation. Power lines would pose a collision hazard to birds, particularly raptors. Numerous paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed, and 134 cultural sites, including five sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be disturbed. Construction and operation activities would degrade local air quality and emit noise, and the mine and associated facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Fuels and other hazardous materials would be transported to and from the site and stored at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0376D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030199, Volume I--677 pages and maps, Volume II--496 pages, April 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36346363?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+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, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - THREE OAKS MINE, LEE AND BASTROP COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 36344805; 10078-030199_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a surface lignite mine, to be known as the Three Oaks Mine, east of Austin in Lee and Bastrop counties, Texas are proposed. The state permit area for the proposed project encompasses 16,062 acres. The applicant, Alcoa Inc., would develop and operate the mine. In addition to the mine pits, project facilities would include a central blending facility, a haul road and overland conveyor, surface water control features, power lines, a substation, relocated roads, maintenance facilities, offices, and groundwater wells. Implementation of the project would begin in 2003, with operating commencing by 2004 and continuing for a period of approximately 25 years. The project would include the mining of an average of 7.0 million tons of lignite per year in sequential mine pits. The lignite would be trucked to a central blending facility and subsequently transported via haul road or overland conveyor to four existing electrical power generating units located near Rockdale in Milam County. Overburden and soil materials would be selectively replaced in the previously mined pits. The mined area would be reshaped and recontoured to the desired post-mine topography, and the mined area would be revegetated. Following completion of mining activities, the project would be closed and all areas reclaimed. In addition to Alcoa's proposal, this final EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine would provide a fuel source replacement for the Sandow Mine, which is currently operated near Rockdale; the Sandow Mine has been in operation since the 1950s and will cease operations by 2005. Mining employment in this region of Texas would continue to be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 8,648 acres of soil and vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat within the project area would be disturbed over the 25-year life of the mine. An additional six acres would be disturbed due to the relocation of roads outside the permit area to provide access to the mining operation. Mining would permanently alter the topography of the site, and topographic depressions could develop. Up to 12,000 acre-feet of groundwater would be pumped annually for mine dewatering and depressurization purposes, significantly depressing the level of the regional aquifer and affecting area wetlands and surface water flows. Approximately 38 miles of intermittent and ephermeral stream channels and 150 stock ponds would be eliminated. A total of 67.4 acresof jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be affected, though these impacts would be mitigated somewhat by the creation of wetlands and riparian woodland at a mitigation site. Several existing county roads and utility lines would require relocation. Power lines would pose a collision hazard to birds, particularly raptors. Numerous paleontological sites would be disturbed or destroyed, and 134 cultural sites, including five sites potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, would be disturbed. Construction and operation activities would degrade local air quality and emit noise, and the mine and associated facilities would mar visual aesthetics in the area. Fuels and other hazardous materials would be transported to and from the site and stored at the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 02-0376D, Volume 26, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 030199, Volume I--677 pages and maps, Volume II--496 pages, April 30, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Coal KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Forests KW - Hazardous Materials KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Streams KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Texas KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36344805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=THREE+OAKS+MINE%2C+LEE+AND+BASTROP+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, Fort Worth, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 30, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). AN - 36436557; 10074 AB - PURPOSE: Reevaluation of a previously authorized flood control project on the Trinity River in the southeastern sector of the city of Dallas, Texas is addressed. This document supplements the information presented in the final EIS of February 1999. In May 2000, various groups opposed to the project filed a motion to prevent its implementation. On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers on three of the four counts in the lawsuit. On the fourth count, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the Corps for further consideration of the cumulative impacts of similar, reasonably foreseeable future projects in the same geographical are as the proposed project. This final supplemental EIS complies with that order. In the final EIS, flood control alternatives and recommendations previously developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were reevaluated based on the current level of economic development as well as ecological values. Prior to reevaluation, the project was to have involved construction of two, 1,200-foot-bottom-width swales extending downstream from the end of the existing Dallas Floodway to approximately 2,000 feet below Loop 12; the swales were to be separated at Interstate 45 (I-45). Public opposition to the plan arose based upon its impacts to forested areas along the Trinity River. Based on the investigations performed and pending the outcome of technical, policy and public review of this document, the currently recommended plan for flood control would consist of construction of off-channel flood controls swale incorporating environmental restoration in the form of a chain of wetlands and standard project flood (SPF) levees on both sides of the river. The upper and lower swales would be separated at I-45. The upper swale, with an average bottom width of 400 feet, would extend from Cedar Creek to the oxbow lake at I-45, a distance of 1.5 miles. The lower swale, with an average bottom width of 600 feet, would extend from I-45 to Loop 12, a distance of 2.2 miles. The lower swale would be aligned to pass through Linfield Landfill and Sleepy Hollow Golf Course to minimize impacts to forested areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. Excavated wetlands would be added as environmental restoration features within the footprint of the swales. An earthen levee, extending 2.9 miles from the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee to the Rochester Park Levee, would be provided to protect Lamar and a levee/floodwall system, extending 1.1 miles from near Cedar Creek to the Central Wastewater Treatment plant would be provided to protect Cadalliac Heights. Recreational facilities included in the project design would consist of hike /bike trails, equestrian trails, canoe launches and pavilions. Economic analysis of the project takes into account previously constructed non-federal levees protecting the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and Rochester Park. Other federal actions that could result in cumulative impacts consist of flood control projects associated with the Stemmons North Industrial District and the existing Dallas Floodway, two ecosystem restoration projects, and a highway project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide flood control and recreational opportunities within southeastern Dallas. As compared to the previously recommended plan, the currently recommended plan would cause far less damage to pristine bottomland hardwood forest. The currently recommended plan would result in no net loss of wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residential structures in the Roosevelt Heights and Floral Farms subdivisions would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0270D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030195, 151 pages and maps, April 29, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Trails KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, 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/36436557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&rft.title=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). [Part 7 of 7] T2 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). AN - 36347665; 10074-030195_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Reevaluation of a previously authorized flood control project on the Trinity River in the southeastern sector of the city of Dallas, Texas is addressed. This document supplements the information presented in the final EIS of February 1999. In May 2000, various groups opposed to the project filed a motion to prevent its implementation. On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers on three of the four counts in the lawsuit. On the fourth count, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the Corps for further consideration of the cumulative impacts of similar, reasonably foreseeable future projects in the same geographical are as the proposed project. This final supplemental EIS complies with that order. In the final EIS, flood control alternatives and recommendations previously developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were reevaluated based on the current level of economic development as well as ecological values. Prior to reevaluation, the project was to have involved construction of two, 1,200-foot-bottom-width swales extending downstream from the end of the existing Dallas Floodway to approximately 2,000 feet below Loop 12; the swales were to be separated at Interstate 45 (I-45). Public opposition to the plan arose based upon its impacts to forested areas along the Trinity River. Based on the investigations performed and pending the outcome of technical, policy and public review of this document, the currently recommended plan for flood control would consist of construction of off-channel flood controls swale incorporating environmental restoration in the form of a chain of wetlands and standard project flood (SPF) levees on both sides of the river. The upper and lower swales would be separated at I-45. The upper swale, with an average bottom width of 400 feet, would extend from Cedar Creek to the oxbow lake at I-45, a distance of 1.5 miles. The lower swale, with an average bottom width of 600 feet, would extend from I-45 to Loop 12, a distance of 2.2 miles. The lower swale would be aligned to pass through Linfield Landfill and Sleepy Hollow Golf Course to minimize impacts to forested areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. Excavated wetlands would be added as environmental restoration features within the footprint of the swales. An earthen levee, extending 2.9 miles from the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee to the Rochester Park Levee, would be provided to protect Lamar and a levee/floodwall system, extending 1.1 miles from near Cedar Creek to the Central Wastewater Treatment plant would be provided to protect Cadalliac Heights. Recreational facilities included in the project design would consist of hike /bike trails, equestrian trails, canoe launches and pavilions. Economic analysis of the project takes into account previously constructed non-federal levees protecting the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and Rochester Park. Other federal actions that could result in cumulative impacts consist of flood control projects associated with the Stemmons North Industrial District and the existing Dallas Floodway, two ecosystem restoration projects, and a highway project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide flood control and recreational opportunities within southeastern Dallas. As compared to the previously recommended plan, the currently recommended plan would cause far less damage to pristine bottomland hardwood forest. The currently recommended plan would result in no net loss of wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residential structures in the Roosevelt Heights and Floral Farms subdivisions would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0270D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030195, 151 pages and maps, April 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Trails KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, 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/36347665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&rft.title=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). [Part 2 of 7] T2 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). AN - 36346818; 10074-030195_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Reevaluation of a previously authorized flood control project on the Trinity River in the southeastern sector of the city of Dallas, Texas is addressed. This document supplements the information presented in the final EIS of February 1999. In May 2000, various groups opposed to the project filed a motion to prevent its implementation. On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers on three of the four counts in the lawsuit. On the fourth count, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the Corps for further consideration of the cumulative impacts of similar, reasonably foreseeable future projects in the same geographical are as the proposed project. This final supplemental EIS complies with that order. In the final EIS, flood control alternatives and recommendations previously developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were reevaluated based on the current level of economic development as well as ecological values. Prior to reevaluation, the project was to have involved construction of two, 1,200-foot-bottom-width swales extending downstream from the end of the existing Dallas Floodway to approximately 2,000 feet below Loop 12; the swales were to be separated at Interstate 45 (I-45). Public opposition to the plan arose based upon its impacts to forested areas along the Trinity River. Based on the investigations performed and pending the outcome of technical, policy and public review of this document, the currently recommended plan for flood control would consist of construction of off-channel flood controls swale incorporating environmental restoration in the form of a chain of wetlands and standard project flood (SPF) levees on both sides of the river. The upper and lower swales would be separated at I-45. The upper swale, with an average bottom width of 400 feet, would extend from Cedar Creek to the oxbow lake at I-45, a distance of 1.5 miles. The lower swale, with an average bottom width of 600 feet, would extend from I-45 to Loop 12, a distance of 2.2 miles. The lower swale would be aligned to pass through Linfield Landfill and Sleepy Hollow Golf Course to minimize impacts to forested areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. Excavated wetlands would be added as environmental restoration features within the footprint of the swales. An earthen levee, extending 2.9 miles from the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee to the Rochester Park Levee, would be provided to protect Lamar and a levee/floodwall system, extending 1.1 miles from near Cedar Creek to the Central Wastewater Treatment plant would be provided to protect Cadalliac Heights. Recreational facilities included in the project design would consist of hike /bike trails, equestrian trails, canoe launches and pavilions. Economic analysis of the project takes into account previously constructed non-federal levees protecting the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and Rochester Park. Other federal actions that could result in cumulative impacts consist of flood control projects associated with the Stemmons North Industrial District and the existing Dallas Floodway, two ecosystem restoration projects, and a highway project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide flood control and recreational opportunities within southeastern Dallas. As compared to the previously recommended plan, the currently recommended plan would cause far less damage to pristine bottomland hardwood forest. The currently recommended plan would result in no net loss of wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residential structures in the Roosevelt Heights and Floral Farms subdivisions would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0270D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030195, 151 pages and maps, April 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Trails KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, 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/36346818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&rft.title=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). [Part 4 of 7] T2 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). AN - 36346790; 10074-030195_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Reevaluation of a previously authorized flood control project on the Trinity River in the southeastern sector of the city of Dallas, Texas is addressed. This document supplements the information presented in the final EIS of February 1999. In May 2000, various groups opposed to the project filed a motion to prevent its implementation. On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers on three of the four counts in the lawsuit. On the fourth count, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the Corps for further consideration of the cumulative impacts of similar, reasonably foreseeable future projects in the same geographical are as the proposed project. This final supplemental EIS complies with that order. In the final EIS, flood control alternatives and recommendations previously developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were reevaluated based on the current level of economic development as well as ecological values. Prior to reevaluation, the project was to have involved construction of two, 1,200-foot-bottom-width swales extending downstream from the end of the existing Dallas Floodway to approximately 2,000 feet below Loop 12; the swales were to be separated at Interstate 45 (I-45). Public opposition to the plan arose based upon its impacts to forested areas along the Trinity River. Based on the investigations performed and pending the outcome of technical, policy and public review of this document, the currently recommended plan for flood control would consist of construction of off-channel flood controls swale incorporating environmental restoration in the form of a chain of wetlands and standard project flood (SPF) levees on both sides of the river. The upper and lower swales would be separated at I-45. The upper swale, with an average bottom width of 400 feet, would extend from Cedar Creek to the oxbow lake at I-45, a distance of 1.5 miles. The lower swale, with an average bottom width of 600 feet, would extend from I-45 to Loop 12, a distance of 2.2 miles. The lower swale would be aligned to pass through Linfield Landfill and Sleepy Hollow Golf Course to minimize impacts to forested areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. Excavated wetlands would be added as environmental restoration features within the footprint of the swales. An earthen levee, extending 2.9 miles from the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee to the Rochester Park Levee, would be provided to protect Lamar and a levee/floodwall system, extending 1.1 miles from near Cedar Creek to the Central Wastewater Treatment plant would be provided to protect Cadalliac Heights. Recreational facilities included in the project design would consist of hike /bike trails, equestrian trails, canoe launches and pavilions. Economic analysis of the project takes into account previously constructed non-federal levees protecting the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and Rochester Park. Other federal actions that could result in cumulative impacts consist of flood control projects associated with the Stemmons North Industrial District and the existing Dallas Floodway, two ecosystem restoration projects, and a highway project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide flood control and recreational opportunities within southeastern Dallas. As compared to the previously recommended plan, the currently recommended plan would cause far less damage to pristine bottomland hardwood forest. The currently recommended plan would result in no net loss of wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residential structures in the Roosevelt Heights and Floral Farms subdivisions would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0270D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030195, 151 pages and maps, April 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Trails KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, 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/36346790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&rft.title=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). [Part 1 of 7] T2 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). AN - 36345634; 10074-030195_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Reevaluation of a previously authorized flood control project on the Trinity River in the southeastern sector of the city of Dallas, Texas is addressed. This document supplements the information presented in the final EIS of February 1999. In May 2000, various groups opposed to the project filed a motion to prevent its implementation. On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers on three of the four counts in the lawsuit. On the fourth count, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the Corps for further consideration of the cumulative impacts of similar, reasonably foreseeable future projects in the same geographical are as the proposed project. This final supplemental EIS complies with that order. In the final EIS, flood control alternatives and recommendations previously developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were reevaluated based on the current level of economic development as well as ecological values. Prior to reevaluation, the project was to have involved construction of two, 1,200-foot-bottom-width swales extending downstream from the end of the existing Dallas Floodway to approximately 2,000 feet below Loop 12; the swales were to be separated at Interstate 45 (I-45). Public opposition to the plan arose based upon its impacts to forested areas along the Trinity River. Based on the investigations performed and pending the outcome of technical, policy and public review of this document, the currently recommended plan for flood control would consist of construction of off-channel flood controls swale incorporating environmental restoration in the form of a chain of wetlands and standard project flood (SPF) levees on both sides of the river. The upper and lower swales would be separated at I-45. The upper swale, with an average bottom width of 400 feet, would extend from Cedar Creek to the oxbow lake at I-45, a distance of 1.5 miles. The lower swale, with an average bottom width of 600 feet, would extend from I-45 to Loop 12, a distance of 2.2 miles. The lower swale would be aligned to pass through Linfield Landfill and Sleepy Hollow Golf Course to minimize impacts to forested areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. Excavated wetlands would be added as environmental restoration features within the footprint of the swales. An earthen levee, extending 2.9 miles from the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee to the Rochester Park Levee, would be provided to protect Lamar and a levee/floodwall system, extending 1.1 miles from near Cedar Creek to the Central Wastewater Treatment plant would be provided to protect Cadalliac Heights. Recreational facilities included in the project design would consist of hike /bike trails, equestrian trails, canoe launches and pavilions. Economic analysis of the project takes into account previously constructed non-federal levees protecting the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and Rochester Park. Other federal actions that could result in cumulative impacts consist of flood control projects associated with the Stemmons North Industrial District and the existing Dallas Floodway, two ecosystem restoration projects, and a highway project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide flood control and recreational opportunities within southeastern Dallas. As compared to the previously recommended plan, the currently recommended plan would cause far less damage to pristine bottomland hardwood forest. The currently recommended plan would result in no net loss of wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residential structures in the Roosevelt Heights and Floral Farms subdivisions would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0270D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030195, 151 pages and maps, April 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Trails KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, 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/36345634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&rft.title=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). [Part 3 of 7] T2 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). AN - 36345629; 10074-030195_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Reevaluation of a previously authorized flood control project on the Trinity River in the southeastern sector of the city of Dallas, Texas is addressed. This document supplements the information presented in the final EIS of February 1999. In May 2000, various groups opposed to the project filed a motion to prevent its implementation. On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers on three of the four counts in the lawsuit. On the fourth count, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the Corps for further consideration of the cumulative impacts of similar, reasonably foreseeable future projects in the same geographical are as the proposed project. This final supplemental EIS complies with that order. In the final EIS, flood control alternatives and recommendations previously developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were reevaluated based on the current level of economic development as well as ecological values. Prior to reevaluation, the project was to have involved construction of two, 1,200-foot-bottom-width swales extending downstream from the end of the existing Dallas Floodway to approximately 2,000 feet below Loop 12; the swales were to be separated at Interstate 45 (I-45). Public opposition to the plan arose based upon its impacts to forested areas along the Trinity River. Based on the investigations performed and pending the outcome of technical, policy and public review of this document, the currently recommended plan for flood control would consist of construction of off-channel flood controls swale incorporating environmental restoration in the form of a chain of wetlands and standard project flood (SPF) levees on both sides of the river. The upper and lower swales would be separated at I-45. The upper swale, with an average bottom width of 400 feet, would extend from Cedar Creek to the oxbow lake at I-45, a distance of 1.5 miles. The lower swale, with an average bottom width of 600 feet, would extend from I-45 to Loop 12, a distance of 2.2 miles. The lower swale would be aligned to pass through Linfield Landfill and Sleepy Hollow Golf Course to minimize impacts to forested areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. Excavated wetlands would be added as environmental restoration features within the footprint of the swales. An earthen levee, extending 2.9 miles from the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee to the Rochester Park Levee, would be provided to protect Lamar and a levee/floodwall system, extending 1.1 miles from near Cedar Creek to the Central Wastewater Treatment plant would be provided to protect Cadalliac Heights. Recreational facilities included in the project design would consist of hike /bike trails, equestrian trails, canoe launches and pavilions. Economic analysis of the project takes into account previously constructed non-federal levees protecting the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and Rochester Park. Other federal actions that could result in cumulative impacts consist of flood control projects associated with the Stemmons North Industrial District and the existing Dallas Floodway, two ecosystem restoration projects, and a highway project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide flood control and recreational opportunities within southeastern Dallas. As compared to the previously recommended plan, the currently recommended plan would cause far less damage to pristine bottomland hardwood forest. The currently recommended plan would result in no net loss of wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residential structures in the Roosevelt Heights and Floral Farms subdivisions would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0270D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030195, 151 pages and maps, April 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Trails KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, 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/36345629?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&rft.title=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). [Part 5 of 7] T2 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). AN - 36344772; 10074-030195_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Reevaluation of a previously authorized flood control project on the Trinity River in the southeastern sector of the city of Dallas, Texas is addressed. This document supplements the information presented in the final EIS of February 1999. In May 2000, various groups opposed to the project filed a motion to prevent its implementation. On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers on three of the four counts in the lawsuit. On the fourth count, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the Corps for further consideration of the cumulative impacts of similar, reasonably foreseeable future projects in the same geographical are as the proposed project. This final supplemental EIS complies with that order. In the final EIS, flood control alternatives and recommendations previously developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were reevaluated based on the current level of economic development as well as ecological values. Prior to reevaluation, the project was to have involved construction of two, 1,200-foot-bottom-width swales extending downstream from the end of the existing Dallas Floodway to approximately 2,000 feet below Loop 12; the swales were to be separated at Interstate 45 (I-45). Public opposition to the plan arose based upon its impacts to forested areas along the Trinity River. Based on the investigations performed and pending the outcome of technical, policy and public review of this document, the currently recommended plan for flood control would consist of construction of off-channel flood controls swale incorporating environmental restoration in the form of a chain of wetlands and standard project flood (SPF) levees on both sides of the river. The upper and lower swales would be separated at I-45. The upper swale, with an average bottom width of 400 feet, would extend from Cedar Creek to the oxbow lake at I-45, a distance of 1.5 miles. The lower swale, with an average bottom width of 600 feet, would extend from I-45 to Loop 12, a distance of 2.2 miles. The lower swale would be aligned to pass through Linfield Landfill and Sleepy Hollow Golf Course to minimize impacts to forested areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. Excavated wetlands would be added as environmental restoration features within the footprint of the swales. An earthen levee, extending 2.9 miles from the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee to the Rochester Park Levee, would be provided to protect Lamar and a levee/floodwall system, extending 1.1 miles from near Cedar Creek to the Central Wastewater Treatment plant would be provided to protect Cadalliac Heights. Recreational facilities included in the project design would consist of hike /bike trails, equestrian trails, canoe launches and pavilions. Economic analysis of the project takes into account previously constructed non-federal levees protecting the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and Rochester Park. Other federal actions that could result in cumulative impacts consist of flood control projects associated with the Stemmons North Industrial District and the existing Dallas Floodway, two ecosystem restoration projects, and a highway project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide flood control and recreational opportunities within southeastern Dallas. As compared to the previously recommended plan, the currently recommended plan would cause far less damage to pristine bottomland hardwood forest. The currently recommended plan would result in no net loss of wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residential structures in the Roosevelt Heights and Floral Farms subdivisions would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0270D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030195, 151 pages and maps, April 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Trails KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, 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/36344772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&rft.title=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 29, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). [Part 6 of 7] T2 - DALLAS FLOODWAY EXTENSION, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF FEBRUARY 1999). AN - 36344562; 10074-030195_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Reevaluation of a previously authorized flood control project on the Trinity River in the southeastern sector of the city of Dallas, Texas is addressed. This document supplements the information presented in the final EIS of February 1999. In May 2000, various groups opposed to the project filed a motion to prevent its implementation. On April 10, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ruled in favor of the Corps of Engineers on three of the four counts in the lawsuit. On the fourth count, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the matter to the Corps for further consideration of the cumulative impacts of similar, reasonably foreseeable future projects in the same geographical are as the proposed project. This final supplemental EIS complies with that order. In the final EIS, flood control alternatives and recommendations previously developed by the Army Corps of Engineers were reevaluated based on the current level of economic development as well as ecological values. Prior to reevaluation, the project was to have involved construction of two, 1,200-foot-bottom-width swales extending downstream from the end of the existing Dallas Floodway to approximately 2,000 feet below Loop 12; the swales were to be separated at Interstate 45 (I-45). Public opposition to the plan arose based upon its impacts to forested areas along the Trinity River. Based on the investigations performed and pending the outcome of technical, policy and public review of this document, the currently recommended plan for flood control would consist of construction of off-channel flood controls swale incorporating environmental restoration in the form of a chain of wetlands and standard project flood (SPF) levees on both sides of the river. The upper and lower swales would be separated at I-45. The upper swale, with an average bottom width of 400 feet, would extend from Cedar Creek to the oxbow lake at I-45, a distance of 1.5 miles. The lower swale, with an average bottom width of 600 feet, would extend from I-45 to Loop 12, a distance of 2.2 miles. The lower swale would be aligned to pass through Linfield Landfill and Sleepy Hollow Golf Course to minimize impacts to forested areas and nearby residential neighborhoods. Excavated wetlands would be added as environmental restoration features within the footprint of the swales. An earthen levee, extending 2.9 miles from the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee to the Rochester Park Levee, would be provided to protect Lamar and a levee/floodwall system, extending 1.1 miles from near Cedar Creek to the Central Wastewater Treatment plant would be provided to protect Cadalliac Heights. Recreational facilities included in the project design would consist of hike /bike trails, equestrian trails, canoe launches and pavilions. Economic analysis of the project takes into account previously constructed non-federal levees protecting the Central Wastewater Treatment Plant and Rochester Park. Other federal actions that could result in cumulative impacts consist of flood control projects associated with the Stemmons North Industrial District and the existing Dallas Floodway, two ecosystem restoration projects, and a highway project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would provide flood control and recreational opportunities within southeastern Dallas. As compared to the previously recommended plan, the currently recommended plan would cause far less damage to pristine bottomland hardwood forest. The currently recommended plan would result in no net loss of wetland. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Residential structures in the Roosevelt Heights and Floral Farms subdivisions would be displaced. LEGAL MANDATES: Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-298), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and Water Resources Development Act of 1996. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 98-0270D, Volume 22, Number 3 and 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 03-0238D, Volume 27, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 030195, 151 pages and maps, April 29, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Flood Control KW - Forests KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Wetlands KW - Trails KW - Texas KW - Executive Order 11988, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Compliance KW - Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965, 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/36344562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&rft.title=DALLAS+FLOODWAY+EXTENSION%2C+TRINITY+RIVER+BASIN%2C+TEXAS+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+NO.+1+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+FEBRUARY+1999%29.&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 - Final. Preparation date: April 29, 2003 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). AN - 36441376; 10070 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36441376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NAPA RIVER SALT MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, NAPA-SONOMA MARSHES WILDLIFE AREA, CALIFORNIA. AN - 36420860; 10071 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a salinity reduction and habitat restoration project within the 9,456-acre Napa River Unit of the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area of California is proposed. The project area, which lies northeast of San Pablo Bay, provides a mosaic of habitats, including tidal habitats and managed ponds that support a variety of fish and terrestrial habitats. Species include endangered species, migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and anadromous and resident fish. The area also provides means of improving regional water quality, providing water recycling capabilities, providing enhanced open space for public use, and providing wildlife-compatible recreation opportunities. The area has suffered from historical losses of marsh ecosystems; increasing salinity and declining ecological value in several ponds; deterioration of levees and water control structures, which could affect salinity levels; increased restoration and operation costs; and inadequate water supply, particularly during summer months, resulting in increased salinity, acidic conditions, and the drying of some ponds. Alternatives considered in this draft EIS address a No Action Alternative, two salinity reduction options, and four habitat restoration options. Eight alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, have been derived from these options. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Restoring tidal wetlands, including tidal marsh, within the unit would create a large contiguous tidal marsh for a diversity of fish and wildlife, including three endangered animal species; provide for a greater variety of slough channel sizes, a large increase in slough habitat, and greater connections among the Napa River, San Pablo Bay, and the tidal salt marsh, benefiting estuarine fish; establish a natural, self-sustaining system that could adjust naturally to changes in physical processes; create large tracts of tidal marsh extending up the Napa River that would allow fish and terrestrial wildlife species to adjust seasonal and long-term changes in salinity; increase the tidal prism that would scour slough to create large tidal channels benefiting fish and diving waterfowl, improve tidal circulation and, thereby, water quality, and increase the production of organic detritus. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging and disposal would create temporary turbidity at the affected open-water and upland sites and upland disposal would affect local terrestrial wildlife habitat and aesthetics and destroy vegetation. Species dependent on low-salinity environments would be negatively affected in some areas. Project activities during implementation would hamper recreationists and degrade recreation-related aesthetics. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Public Works Appropriations (P.L. 94-355). JF - EPA number: 030192, 882 pages, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Bays KW - Birds KW - Channels KW - Dikes KW - Disposal KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Forests KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Open Space KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recycling KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Toxicity KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Napa River KW - Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area KW - San Pablo Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Works Appropriations, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/36420860?accountid=14244 L2 - http://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=2003-04-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=NAPA+RIVER+SALT+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+NAPA-SONOMA+MARSHES+WILDLIFE+AREA%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: April 25, 2003 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 7 of 26] 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 - 36347857; 10070-030191_0007 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36347857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 15 of 26] 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 - 36347316; 10070-030191_0015 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36347316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 22 of 26] 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 - 36346603; 10070-030191_0022 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36346603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 4 of 26] 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 - 36346451; 10070-030191_0004 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36346451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 19 of 26] 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 - 36346304; 10070-030191_0019 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36346304?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 5 of 26] 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 - 36346208; 10070-030191_0005 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36346208?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 12 of 26] 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 - 36346125; 10070-030191_0012 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36346125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 3 of 26] 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 - 36346038; 10070-030191_0003 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36346038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 26] 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 - 36345982; 10070-030191_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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36345982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 9 of 26] 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 - 36345949; 10070-030191_0009 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36345949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 25 of 26] 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 - 36345428; 10070-030191_0025 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36345428?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 13 of 26] 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 - 36345266; 10070-030191_0013 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36345266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 18 of 26] 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 - 36345128; 10070-030191_0018 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36345128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 8 of 26] 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 - 36345096; 10070-030191_0008 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36345096?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 24 of 26] 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 - 36345083; 10070-030191_0024 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36345083?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 11 of 26] 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 - 36344916; 10070-030191_0011 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 26 of 26] 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 - 36344880; 10070-030191_0026 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 23 of 26] 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 - 36344859; 10070-030191_0023 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 6 of 26] 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 - 36344698; 10070-030191_0006 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 16 of 26] 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 - 36344600; 10070-030191_0016 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 20 of 26] 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 - 36344579; 10070-030191_0020 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344579?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 2 of 26] 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 - 36344526; 10070-030191_0002 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344526?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 17 of 26] 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 - 36344308; 10070-030191_0017 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 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 10 of 26] 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 - 36344116; 10070-030191_0010 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 Suothpark 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 subalternatives are considered in this draft 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 to 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 bottomland 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). JF - EPA number: 030191, 303 pages and maps, April 25, 2003 PY - 2003 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-LA-EIS-03-01-D 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/36344116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2003-04-25&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 - 2006-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 25, 2003 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -