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 Relocati